What if UFC Wins? #5b – leadership – Policy-Making
The United Federation of Teachers’ leadership structure would change with a United for Change victory. But how?
Last week I printed a short piece with a list of candidates for Exec Board at Large. United for Change was mostly teachers. Unity was mostly full-time for the UFT, or District Reps, in other words, people who are not working in schools today, or are working just one class a day. And I posted in the online NYC teachers facebook page, where it got some attention.
Problem was, I had a point, but the picture is actually more complicated. A few said that once UFC was in power, our list would look the same. Several thought I was asking to make DRs teach a full class load (absolutely not!) Someone said it felt like a cheap shot, and while that was not my intent, it does leave me wanting to share fuller thoughts, potentially to generate real discussion. But in doing so, I want to talk about much more than just the Exec Board.
#5 Leadership Structure
I am the UFC candidate for High School Vice President. If we win I will be one of 12 members of the administrative committee (AdCom) and will help shape the new leadership’s agenda.
I cannot speak for our Coalition – these are decisions that need to be made. But I know our platform, and have a good idea about some decision.
We want greater rank and file voice and control of our union, including of general policy. We want greater union democracy. But how will that look? What steps will we take?
Two Tasks of Leadership
I am discussing two varieties of leadership tasks in the union:
- representing members, and
- making policy.
And I treat them as separate, although there is invariable some overlap. My previous post was about representation. This one is about policy-making.
Setting UFT Policy
- Chapter
- Chapter Leaders
- Officers
- Executive Board
- Delegate Assembly
Chapter / Chapter Leaders
Chapters and Chapter Leaders? Sure. Which SBOs to pursue, and which not to. What goals the chapter sets. What issues deserve priority. A well-functioning chapter actually joins the members and the chapter leadership in making quite a bit of local policy.
But Chapters and Chapter Leaders? You are correct. That’s not what the bulk of this post is about – just didn’t want to omit something this important.
Officers/AdCom
Day to day, the Administrative Committee meets and consults to suggest and implement policy. This is the president, the vice presidents, all the other officers. I think AdCom brings in additional department heads, and others, but I am not certain.
In theory the Administrative Committee carries out the directions it gets from the Delegate Assembly and the Executive Board. In practice, the United Federation of Teachers has been run top-down by Unity Caucus – and the AdCom tells the Exec Board and the Delegate Assembly what to approve.
The officers are directly elected by the membership as a whole. Retiree votes are capped – last time each retiree got something around 0.96 of a vote. Vice presidents are also elected by the membership as a whole, in other words, at large, even when they represent a particular division.
United for Change has not discussed any change in how AdCom is composed. We will propose that VPs be elected directly by their divisions. What sense does it make for retirees to vote on the Elementary School VP, or elementary teachers to vote for the High School Vice President? And we may propose a Vice President directly responsible for retiree issues.
The bigger changes would be in the relationship between the AdCom, the Executive Board, and the Delegate Assembly.
The Executive Board
The Executive Board meets twice each month, September through June. it is the intermediate policy setting body, in theory, and in practice.
In theory, it takes direction from the Delegate Assembly, and sets policy for AdCom. It also takes suggestions from AdCom and forwards them to the DA. It also questions officers on how policy is being implemented.
In practice the Exec Board approves directives from the AdCom, and passes them on. Unity members of the Executive Board generally sit in silence, raising their hand to signal they are voting as they are supposed to.
It is different when there are opposition representatives on the board. I was on the Executive Board for 11 years. Then, hard questions were asked. We would discuss resolutions, sometimes supporting, sometimes opposing, sometimes amending. We would bring our own resolutions. We brought members from schools who had issues that they were not getting help with, to speak at the “open mike.” That did not change the results of most of the votes, but it did change the tenor of the meetings.
But I am concerned today not about which caucus(es) have seats on the exec board. I addressed that question, somewhat, in my argument for proportional representation.
I am concerned with WHO should serve – the composition of the body.
The basics, though the numbers shift between divisions, as the balance in the schools changes from election to election: 12 elementary school, 4 middle school, 7 high school, 19 “functional”, 48 “at large” and the 12 officers, for a total of 102.
Unity tends to bulk up the board with full-time union employees, and with District Reps (who teach one class a day, same as VPs). I decided to underline this point by publishing a list of who United for Change was running, and who Unity was running, for the 48 At Large spots:
Is this an accurate picture? Does it represent a different outlook?
Some Unity supporters pointed out that United for Change is not in power now – we have no full-timers. True.
Some pointed out that District Reps are teachers. True. And that they face the same conditions in schools as any other teacher. Not quite true.
And some asked: is UFC proposing that DRs teach full teaching loads? The answer to that is – No. Absolutely not. It is appropriate and correct and best practice for the District Reps to teach one class, and only one class, to allow them some connection to the classroom, while freeing them for time to engage in representational activity.
So who should be on?
There are two major leadership tasks – representation, and policy-making. The Executive Board makes policy. That does not mean that people with representational responsibilities – one United for Change candidate suggested that District Reps do not belong – I disagree. But nor should there be an expectation that those with represent members are the best people to be making policy. It depends on the individual.
It would be better if more of the decision makers were full time in school members.
But that is not an absolute statement.
Some district reps are good at representing, and that is what they should do. But others may have an interest in shaping policy, in suggesting changes, in fine-tuning what we do. It may turn out that DRs who sit silently on the Executive Board today, actually have valuable ideas to contribute. It may turn out, if UFC wins and DRs come from several caucuses, that there are new DRs who have a knack for policy. I would not presume to exclude them.
Borough Reps even more so. A borough rep gets perhaps the fullest range of pressures and demands – from DRs, from Central, from the special offices, from Chapter Leaders, and sometimes directly from rank and file members. Does that mean that Borough Reps should automatically be on the Exec Board? No. But they are uniquely situated, and might bring good perspective. It depends on the individual.
There are offices in the UFT that run things, or administer programs. Their leaders and top workers serve those programs or offices first. I think each major office or program should be represented by someone who speaks for that office at the Executive Board, but without a say in making policy. I’m thinking foremost about pension, the welfare fund, and grievance. I might also think about political action, if there ever was a teacher in charge again. Their representatives can supply the Executive Board with valuable information – but they should not take seats, should not take part in the votes.
The Director of Grievance comes and gives reports to the Exec Board, answers questions, but does not have a seat. I think that is correct. There are two representatives of the Welfare Fund on the Exec Board. I like Geoff, and Joe has been personally helpful to me when I’ve had issues. But the Welfare Fund should be following the organization’s direction – and should be reporting to us on how things are going. It should not have vote(s) in setting policy. Pension will always have representation on the board through two officers: the treasurer, and the assistant treasurer. But that should be it. In this case there is a third rep on the Executive Board – nicest guy, helpful – this is a Unity person, and I have nothing but good things to say about David Kazansky, and on top of all else just a really decent guy – but that does not mean that reps from departments should be taking seats on the Board.
So, in response to the question, if UFC wins, won’t we have fulltimers on next election? I say yes, we will, but not nearly as many as Unity puts there.
Also, we want people who will speak up.
Further, we should look at the Functional Division. It is an assemblage of reps from many chapters. Some of those chapter are large enough – certainly retirees are, probably paraprofessionals, perhaps others – that they should be able to elect their own representatives. Large groups could be separated from Functionals, making this a more representative body.
And finally, the divisions should be larger, maybe increase each 50%. Guarantee more seats for high schools, for paras, for elementary. And do this by reducing the number of At Large seats.
The Delegate Assembly
In theory the Delegate Assembly is the highest decision making body of the United Federation of Teachers. In practice it has been a rubber stamp for the Executive Board and ultimately, AdCom.
There is no easy fix. Elect officers who are committed to developing rank and file strength would be a good start.
But the basic set-up of the Delegate Assembly is ok. Each school gets a delegate for every 100 or part of 100 members. Each school also has a chapter leader, who doubles as a second (or third, etc) delegate.
There is a problem, structural, with the Retired Teachers Chapter – they send hundreds of delegates, elected in a winner take all election. That has to stop. We need proportional representation for those delegates.
There are issues with disrespect shown towards members, with abuse of the privileges of the chair – but those are mostly not structural issues.
There are issues with rules of order, with the standing agenda, and those are worth addressing. The Delegate Assembly, if it is to set policy, needs a report from the officers that shares needed information. But Unity has perverted this into an hour and fifteen minute ramble. The business portion of the meeting is reduced to about 20 minutes, which is inadequate. Debate is short, and party line, and usually involves a quick vote, if we get to that.
For the Delegate Assembly to even begin to perform its policy-making work, it must have adequate information, and adequate time. This could be addressed by time-limiting the president’s report. It could also be addressed, in part, by restoring Chapter Leader meetings to once a month, separate and apart from the DAs. A long president’s report (still shorter than today), followed by a long question and answer would be valuable. And it would free up DA time to set policy.
Another aside: some schools give up their right to have a delegate, and hand the seat to the DR, who teaches one class in the school. This is wrong. Members should not give up their right to have voice in policy, and being a DR should not entitle someone to a seat on a policy making body.
Setting Policy II
Things today are stood on their head. The AdCom sets policy, and the DA votes yes. In a bottom-up sort of system, real feedback from the Delegates would shape policy, and would help us avoid some of the gross errors that Unity has recently been made. Top-down leads to mistakes – so why do they insist on top-down?
Not allowing people to disagree to speak means having stupid fights over stopping people from speaking. If your ideas are better, let them speak, you answer, and after debate, if your ideas are really better, you will win? Part of the top-down control seems aimed at stopping people who disagree with you from speaking.
Hell, if I were Unity, I’d let me speak. I can be 100% right, and Unity can still signal its faithful and get a lockstep vote against me. I’ve seen it happen, at the Exec Board, where they could not deny me the mike, but could still win every vote 95 – 7. If you can win any vote, any time you want, on any issues – why put so much effort into stopping people who disagree from speaking?
What if UFC Wins? #5a – leadership – representation
The United Federation of Teachers’ leadership structure would change with a United for Change victory. But how?
Last week I printed a short piece with a list of candidates for Exec Board at Large. United for Change was mostly teachers. Unity was mostly full-time for the UFT, or District Reps, in other words, people who are not working in schools today, or are working just one class a day. And I posted in the online NYC teachers facebook page, where it got some attention.
Problem was, I had a point, but the picture is actually more complicated. A few said that once UFC was in power, our list would look the same. Several thought I was asking to make DRs teach a full class load (absolutely not!) Someone said it felt like a cheap shot, and while that was not my intent, it does leave me wanting to share fuller thoughts, potentially to generate real discussion. But in doing so, I want to talk about much more than just the Exec Board.
#5 Leadership Structure
I am the UFC candidate for High School Vice President. If we win I will be one of 12 members of the administrative committee (AdCom) and will help shape the new leadership’s agenda.
I cannot speak for our Coalition – these are decisions that need to be made. But I know our platform, and have a good idea about some decision.
We want greater rank and file voice and control of our union. We want greater union democracy. But how will that look? What steps will we take?
Two Tasks of Leadership
I will discuss two varieties of leadership tasks in the union:
- representing members, and
- making policy.
And I will treat them as separate, although there is invariable some overlap. In this post I will look at representation. I will save policy-making for a separate post.
Representing Members
- Chapter Leaders
- District Representatives
- (Special Representatives)
- (Further “up the chain”)
Chapter Leaders
Chapter Leaders are, for most of our members, the only union representative they interact with. Chapter Leaders are a critical part, the most critical part of our union. They must have a strong link with their members. Members vote for their Chapter Leader. That helps maintain that connection.
There has been a push over the last few years from 52 Broadway to improve how Chapter Leaders report, sometimes to their District Reps, sometimes to Central. I’ll talk about this later. But partially missing from those initiatives and discussions is how Chapter Leaders report to their members – it’s there, but without enough emphasis. There is a system for giving bonuses to Chapter Leaders who do a good job – but the categories measured are all how well the CL reports to Central or carries out directives that Central looks for. Completely missing? There is no value assigned for holding chapter meetings, for distributing minutes to chapter members. It is possible to get a top score (which is worth quite a bit of money, up to $1000) without holding a single chapter meeting or communicating with members.
Summary: Chapter Leaders are currently elected by their members. That is how it currently is, and how it should be. There is not enough emphasis on Chapter Leaders communicating with their members (sharing with the members, listening to the members). Most good chapter leaders figure this out anyway, but there should be encouragement from UFT Central.
District Representatives
District Representatives are Chapters Leaders’ first point of contact. I think most Chapter Leaders have their District Rep’s phone number, and use it. When we have issues (I’m saying “we” as a longtime Chapter Leader) the District Rep is the first one we reach out to. When I filed my first grievance for my chapter, not a particular member, and the borough office did not want to take it, it was my District Rep who fought for my school.
If the Chapter Leader is the day to day face of the union for most of our members – who do those Chapter Leader turn to each day? That is the district rep. The link between CL and DR is one of the most critical for the ongoing functioning and health of the union.
Chapter Leaders should vote for their District Reps. This is, in fact, the way things were until 2002, when Unity leadership used a disruptive Board of Education (starting to call itself the Department of Education) restructuring into regions to claim that Chapter Leaders could no longer be organized consistently into districts, so the elections were off, and from now on DRs would be appointed by the UFT president.
The relationship between District Rep and Chapter Leader, this crucial link, was, over time, badly damaged by this change. At first there was no visible difference. But as time went on, we began to lose things. CLs no longer looked at the DR as one of them, as their rep, with access and time. This was Randi’s emissary, or Mulgrew’s emissary, in their district. The DRs stopped depending on needing to meet the needs of their CLs – instead their primary responsibility was to their employer in lower Manhattan. Central sees it too. Look at all the things CLs report directly to central, bypassing the DR. Central has made it possible for DRs to be appointed who are not Chapter Leaders in the district, or not even from the District. There is no respect for the CL/DR relationship.
When I was a new CL, my second DR was appointed, but she would have been elected. She was one of us. And this was Bronx High Schools – we had been decimated by bad DoE policy, including policies designed to force our schools to close. And the union was not always properly understanding, and had in fact participated in some of the voluntary closing of schools. Yes, I am still bitter. But here we had a DR who was one of us, who we trusted to bring our concerns to staff meetings downtown, who would be our voice. But also, when our DR said something was important and had to be done, we would jump to do it. We have few, if any, of those DRs today.
Under the current presidential appointment system, we do have District Reps who serve their members well. But we also have had individual District Reps absolutely ignore the needs of their schools, and stay in the job indefinitely. Such festering sores are corrosive. They breed cynicism within our union. They eat away at this critical link. Under this system, Mulgrew gets 100% loyalty, and CLs may or may not get good representation.
Under an elected system, things would be different. Mulgrew could not count on 100% loyalty from a District Rep. But the CLs would choose someone to represent them. If that person does the job, they’d be reelected. If they don’t, they wouldn’t. Notice, by the way, if the person cannot work with the Director of Staff or the officers, odds are they could not serve their CLs well, and would be unlikely to be reelected.
To be clear, this becomes a representational, rather than a political, position. I’m going to mention a real name here – District 25 DR Lamar Hughes. I don’t think we know each other more than to nod or say hello. I’ve seen his social media during the campaign – not only has it been hardcore Unity, it has been, in my opinion, unfair. I’ll stop there. He might say the same about me. Right, you’ve got the picture. I’ve got a negative assessment of where he stands politically. But if United for Change wins the election and we move to elections for DRs, and if Lamar serves his Chapter Leaders well, I expect that he would be reelected. And if he continues to represent well, I’d expect him to be reelected again, and again, and again. And that is right, and that is good. Because the DR should not serve at the pleasure of the president, but should serve as the representative of their Chapter Leaders, the elected representative of the members in each school.
Think about it. An elected District Rep is a stronger District Rep. And a CL who helps elect their DR will also be more responsive to their DR. They will feel a sense of some control, some ownership, over the broader life of the union.
Summary: District Reps should be elected by Chapter Leaders. But they are currently appointed by Mulgrew. That should change. The link between CL and DR is critical to the health of the union. Steps (beyond election) must be taken to repair this link.
Special Reps
In the early 2000s Bloomberg and Klein created lots of small schools, mainly by destroying large schools. But this meant many more principals, and many more chapter leaders. This screwed with representation. If we went from 25 Bronx high schools to 120, even though the number of members stayed the same, the number of schools, principals, and issues – all soared.
Different boroughs tried different things at different times. But basically, special reps got brought in to spread the load. In some cases the high school district got split between DR and Special Rep. In other cases smaller high schools got spun off to district-based DRs. Some Special Reps got high schools that were tied together by type or size or theme. I experienced several models directly, and learned about many others by speaking with Chapter Leaders in other schools and other boroughs.
One model stood out as the best: In the Bronx, right after the school break-ups, a special rep came in and split the high schools with the DR. But we continued to meet as a single high school district. We preserved that relationship among our schools, our Chapter Leaders, in our borough. And while Lynne Winderbaum was my DR, and Mary Atkinson repped the other schools, there was no problem with me asking Mary something, or someone in one of Mary’s schools running something by Lynne. We remained one district, with two reps. They functioned as a team, and we avoided being fragmented. I should also add, we had pretty good meetings. Attendance could have been better, but the presentations were solid, and the questions and discussion after were rich.
I don’t know from the District Rep and Special Rep point of view if that was a successful model. I would speak to them and ask. But from a chapter leader point of view, that was better than anything that has come since. And from my point of view, better than any models being run elsewhere. If it is reasonable for the Reps, I’d like to see it at least tried in other places. And if Mary and Lynne think it wasn’t so great, I’d like to look at ways of replicating the parts that Chapter Leaders liked.
One issue with members/chapter leaders/schools being repped by special reps rather than DRs would be what would happen if we moved to elections. We (UFC) have not discussed this – and I assume that elections would be in order – but there are important distinctions between Special Reps and District Reps, and maybe we need to look closer at the details.
Further on the Chain
It is not clear to me – maybe someone inside can clarify – how information and representation works between District Reps and – hmm – who? There is a Director of Staff. There are borough offices with Borough Representatives. And there are the officers, including the president. I’m going to leave this piece alone, for now.
But a word about the borough representatives. I do not think
Chapter Leader : District Rep :: District Rep : Borough Rep
is an adequate or an accurate analogy. The borough reps have a broader portfolio than that, which includes, yes, working with DRs, but also tracking many member services, running an office, coordinating events, etc.
Part of the United for Change platform calls for moving to the election of Borough Reps. I disagree with that line in our platform. First, I don’t know who would vote. Second, if we decided, for example, all members in the borough, what would they be voting for? Since the position consists of a wide range of managerial, representational, communication, and organizational tasks, and since the position is not inherently political, I don’t think an election makes sense. We vote for mayor, but not for Commissioners of Sanitation or Transportation – and there is good reason for that. Similar here.
Next
I will follow up with a post on the other side of leadership: Policy Making.
What Difference Would Proportional Representation Make?
How would United Federation of Teachers elections change if United for Change wins this election?
We would raise turnout, perhaps by moving to electronic voting (it works fine for SBOs). District Representatives would be elected by their Chapter Leaders (the system we used to have). Vice Presidents would be elected by their actual members (instead of “at large”), as it used to be.
I wrote about these things yesterday. They are all things the UFT used to do (DRs, VPs) or things we do in another context (electronic voting).
But I proposed proportional representation. That would be new. Why would this be a good idea? (I’m looking, for the purposes of this discussion at Exec Board + VPs only.)
If my only reason was: “There would be more opposition seats” that would be valid for me to raise, but in that case the benefit would only be to me and my allies, and probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But there is much more.
Fairness
Proportional representation would be fairer. Needs no explanation. High school seats are usually determined by a few hundred votes, yet the 1000-2000 who voted the other way get zero representation (this goes for opposition, when we lose, or for Unity, who gets shut out unfairly when the opposition wins).
More representative
Well… How can we have a union where one party lost a third of the high school votes, a quarter of the middle school votes, a sixth of the elementary votes, but still win all 102 seats? Only by leaving that third of high school votes, quarter of middle school voters, and sixth of elementary school voters with no representation. Or, think about 2016 – Unity won 46% of high school votes, but got zero seats.
Better discussion
As things are currently, a Unity leader makes a proposal, and then the Unity representative vote yes. There is minimal, if any, discussion. What discussion there is is usually praise. And yet there are people in the schools, not represented by the Unity reps on the exec board, whose ideas are never heard. Having more varied representation would bring some of those voices to the table. This would lead to, conceivably, richer discussion. This would lead to, certainly, some discussion where there is currently none.
Better outcomes, better resolutions
I’d like to give examples, but over the last three years, the timeframe we should focus most on, there has been no opposition on the Executive Board. That’s a bad situation, during this crisis, when proposals and approaches and decisions most needed to be shaped by member input, by a variety of voices – instead Unity reported, and the board mostly nodded and raised their hands.
Unity would have maintained huge majorities in 2019 and 2016 under proportional representation, had we already adopted it. They could have passed anything they liked. But there would have been discussion, conversation, debate, objections. What ideas don’t improve when they are subject to careful review? When the proposers have a chance to explain them, or defend them?
Could Unity resolutions be blocked by a minority under proportional representation? No. Could those resolutions, subject to questioning and debate, be strengthened or improved? Yes. It is a distinct possibility. And this applies to more than just resolutions – everything about our approach to the DoE or the politicians should be subjected to critical review.
Healthy debate will make our resolutions, our decisions, our initiatives better.
Better elections
The level of tension around UFT elections gets high. Much of what is said is invective. There are no debates. In social media there are platform documents from one side, vague promises to stay the course from the other, promotion of personalities. There are also false accusations and cheap shots. I blame one side far more than the other – but I blame the system most of all. The winner-take-all nature of these elections guarantees that scoring points matters much more than treating each other with respect. The stakes are THAT high.
Of course the big prize, the office of president, would continue to be Winner-take-all. There’s no other way. But the Executive Board can be elected on the basis of proportional representation, and that would make a great difference.
With proportional representation, instead of winner take all, we would know in advance that we were going to win some seats, and it would be a question of how many. An opposition caucus would be competing to expand its voice – not struggling to maintain its existence.
For example, in the high schools this time, United for Change would be pretty sure of winning at least 3 of the seats, Unity would be pretty sure of winning 3, or at least 2 seats – and the competition would be over the 6th and 7th seats, not the whole lot of 7.
In the Elementary Schools there are 12 seats at stake. Could Unity get 10? or just 9? or 8?
Every group running would be strongly motivated to run hard in every division. No caucus would take a division for granted. But with the stakes lowered, no caucus would be fighting for survival, just for a larger number of seats. And no caucus would be fighting to control everything, just to increase its margin.
And with those real stakes, but lowered stakes, we would be able to have a clash of ideas, instead of insults. Members would be able to choose between different policy directions, rather than superficial arguments.
Elections could engage members with ideas. Elections could drive member engagement with the union. Elections with proportional representation could make the United Federation of Teachers a better union.
What if…
Take a look:
2016
UFT Executive Board 2019 as it would have been with Proportional Representation (right)
Unity – Yellow; MORE/New Action – purple; Solidarity – green
A third group would have gained voice. Unity would have gained some high school representation; MORE/New Action would have gained some reps at other levels. Overall, Unity would have still won every vote, if they voted lock-step.
2019
UFT Executive Board 2019 as it would have been with Proportional Representation (right)
Unity – Yellow; MORE – red; New Action – blue; Solidarity – green
Unity would have maintained an overwhelming majority on the Executive Board, and would have passed anything it wanted. Yet under proportional representation they would have also heard from other voices in schools.
What if UFC wins? #4 Elections
Elections! If United for Change wins, there will be a whole lot of changes…
And some of them will effect elections.
#4 Elections
I am the UFC candidate for High School Vice President. If we win I will be one of 12 members of the administrative committee (AdCom) and will help shape the new leadership’s agenda.
I cannot speak for our Coalition – these are decisions that need to be made. But I know our platform, and have a good idea about some decisions.
Chapter Leaders
Chapter Leaders are, for most of our members, the only union representative they interact with. Chapter Leaders are a critical part, the most critical part of our union. They must have a strong link with their members. Members vote for their Chapter Leader. That helps maintain that connection.
We serve our members. We are chosen by our members. Election of Chapter Leaders is necessary for the health of our union. United for Change will maintain direct elections of Chapter Leaders by their members.
Strange (maybe?) personal thought: Thirty years ago Chapter Leaders served two-year terms. Was the move to three year terms an improvement? That could be an interesting discussion, though it is not part of anyone’s agenda today. Elections take work to organize. That’s a minus. But they engage members in the union. That’s a plus. And if they tried to move President, Senate and Congress from 4 years, 6 years and 2 years to 6, 9 and 3 – people wouldn’t be so happy. I think this is a discussion worth having, but not today. It’s not obvious to me which way such a discussion would go (but I’d love any discussion that really engaged our chapter leaders).
Delegates to the Delegate Assembly
Delegate election happens along with Chapter Leader Election, and is mostly a non-issue… except…
There are multiple delegates from some chapters. That usually doesn’t matter much – but in larger chapters, especially functional chapters, especially the Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC), that’s a whole lot of delegates.
Last Spring Unity won 70% of the vote in the RTC. Retiree Advocate (today, running wth UFC) won 30%. Unity won roughly 200 delegates. UFC won 0. This is just wrong.
UFC would move us towards proportional representation, at least in the RTC, perhaps in all functional chapters. I don’t know how technically feasible or desirable this would be in school-based chapters. A constitutional amendment may be required – but we would look into that.
District Representatives
United for Change favors a return to election of District Representatives. This will happen if we are elected. It was wrong to move to a system of presidentially appointed DRs. The link between Chapter Leaders and District Reps is a critical one, and making them less responsible to each other was a serious error.
How soon will we make this change? As quickly as we can. I would expect to see elections, fast.
I also think that DRs should be elected from amongst Chapter Leaders in the district (Unity changed those rules). This job should be for people to serve their district, their schools, their members, their chapter leaders. It should not be a “stepping stone” position. UFC has, however, not discussed this at that level of detail.
Interesting question: how many current DRs (all Unity) would win if they ran? If their Chapter Leaders got to vote? Or got to challenge them?
My guess – a third would win. A third wouldn’t stand a chance. And the last third might be interesting.
Vice Presidents
Divisional Vice Presidents should be elected by their respective divisions. This is how it used to be – until Michael Shulman of New Action won the High School Vice Presidency. Unity responded, when it could, by making all VPs “VP at large” and having everyone, all divisions, all functional chapters, all retirees, having all of them vote on, for example, the elementary school VP. The right to elect the elementary school VP should be returned to elementary school teachers.
This change will require an amendment to the constitution. Instead of electing 7 At Large VPs, we would elect: VP Elementary Schools, VP Middle Schools, VP Academic High Schools, VP Career and Technical HS, VP Special Ed, VP Non-DoE, and, finally, one VP At Large.
Executive Board
I can think of three large changes to the Executive Board
- Proportional representation within divisions, and within the “at large” group. It is absolutely ridiculous and actually kind of offensive that these seats are winner-take-all. How can they be actually representative of their division. This is not in the UFC platform, but I think we would have broad agreement. It is not addressed in the constitution, so I don’t know if we would need an amendment, or if it would be better to go another route.
- Separate divisions for large functional chapters. There is no reason that Paraprofessionals must be lumped in with “functional” – they deserve to have a designated division within the Executive Board. Same with Retirees. I do not not know how the rest of UFC thinks about this, but it is worth a discussion. Specific divisions would have to be named – and this would need to be a constitutional change – so if there were support, it would require the full amendment process.
- Increase the size of each division’s representation – and decrease the At Large. There are 12 officers, 42 divisional, and 48 At Large positions. That’s almost half at large? The number At Large should be cut at least in two, while increasing representation for Middle School, Paraprofessionals, other Functionals, etc. This, today, is my opinion alone. But if we are looking at the Exec Board, and considering changes, I would suggest this, and I think it makes enough sense that it would at least get serious consideration.
NYSUT, AFT, and NEA Delegates
We favor proportional representation. These positions are not mentioned in our constitution, but the change to proportional representation should be taken just as seriously for NYSUT delagates as for Exec Board and Functional Chapter Delegate.
How we vote
The current system seems designed to suppress turnout. United for Change would immediately investigate systems of electronic or in school voting, and choose the method most likely to produce a secure election, but also an election with high turn out.
A more honorable leadership would be mortified by the chronic low turnout in UFT elections. In-service turnout has hovered around 25%, and in middle schools has been as low as 17%. Those numbers should have provoked a committee, a study, recommendations, and a new system. They indicate a crisis. Instead, Unity is comfortable with low turnout, as long as they are returned to office.
A United for Change victory will be translated into a voting system that tries to reconnect our disconnected members, that engages the majority of our members in union elections.
So how would this have played out?
Had all these changes been in place before the 2016 elections, there would have been much higher turnout. There would have been more divisions. There is no way to see what effect those things would have had. But what if the system were the same, but 1) VPs were elected by division, 2) Exec Board members were elected proportionately in each division, and at large, and 3) AFT/RA delegates were elected proportionately.
My calculations below are rough, and assume one common method of allocating seats proportionately. The real numbers could have been a bit higher or lower, but would have been close to this.
2016
What happened
Unity won all the officers.
Unity won 100% of Elementary School, Middle School, and Functional Exec Board seats. Unity won 100% of At Large Exec Board seats. MORE/New Action won the High School Exec Board seats. Exec Board total: 95 Unity, 7 MORE/New Action.
Unity won all 750 conventional delegates.
What would have happened
Officers: Unity would have won 10 or 11. MORE/New Action would have won Academic HS VP, and possibly Career and Technical HS VP
Exec Board
- Exec Board Elementary School: 8 Unity, 3 MORE/NAC
- Exec Board Middle School: 3 Unity, 2 MORE/NAC
- Exec Board High School: 3 Unity, 4 MORE/NAC
- Exec Board Functional: 15 Unity, 3 MORE/NAC, 1 Solidarity
- Exec Board At Large: 37 Unity, 10 MORE/NAC, 1 Solidarity
The total for the Exec Board would have roughly been 76 Unity, 24 MORE/New Action, 2 Solidarity
Delegates (rough calculation): Unity 570, MORE/New Action 160, Solidarity 20.
2019
What happened
Unity won all the officers.
Unity won 100% of Elementary School, Middle School, High School Functional Exec Board seats. Unity won 100% of At Large Exec Board seats. Exec Board total: 102 Unity, no opposition.
Unity won all 750 conventional delegates.
What would have happened
Officers: Unity would have won all the officers.
Exec Board
- Exec Board Elementary School: 9 Unity, 1 MORE, 1 Solidarity
- Exec Board Middle School: 4 Unity, 1 Solidarity
- Exec Board High School: 4 Unity, 1 MORE, 1 New Action, 1 Solidarity
- Exec Board Functional: 16 Unity, 1 MORE, 1 New Action, 1 Solidarity
- Exec Board At Large: 40 Unity, 3 MORE, 1 New Action, 4 Solidarity
The total for the Exec Board would have roughly been 85 Unity, 6 MORE, 3 New Action, 8 Solidarity
Delegates (rough calculation): Unity 625, MORE 40, New Action 25, Solidarity 60.
Summary
A Unity victory will lead to more of what we currently have. More backroom deals. More Executive Board meetings with hands being raised in unison, with no real questions or debate. More trashing opponents, and refusing to engage members in real discussion. And whatever policy mistakes they are making today and have made recently, they will continue to do exactly the same. There will be no voice for those who disagree. And, as we can see, those who serve on elected bodies, but were put there by Unity, serve in silence. They serve Unity, not their members.
A United for Change victory would lead to a fairer election system, with more vibrant discussions. We will make sure that minority voices are heard. Eliminating much of the “winner-take-all” voting would help elevate the clash of ideas over the current cheap shots. Proportional representation would not change who wins an election. The majority will still be the majority. But proportional representation would bring significant other voices into leadership. United for Change will welcome serious discussion. We know that that backroom is not the place to finalize plans. We want fuller discussion and debate – which lead, ultimately, to better policy.
I trust our members to consider proposals carefully. I value their thoughts, ideas, suggestions. There will be differences, and some ideas will be rejected. But a union leadership that silences voices in advance, that refuses to hear them, to let them be heard – a union leadership that plots in secret and demands that leaders acquiesce to policy rather than discuss/make policy – that leadership should not be leading.
It is time for a change. Vote United for Change.
United Federation of ________???
Our union represents many school workers – counselors, therapists, secretaries, paras, nurses, and of course teachers. I’ve probably missed some titles. We also represent titles outside of schools. But who do we represent the most of? Teachers. It’s even in our name. The United Federation of Teachers. Maybe it should be United Federation of School Workers – more accurate, if less snappy – but for today, no. We are the UFT.
You’d expect a lot of teachers to be involved in running our union. And that’s what we find – or – more precisely – former teachers who call themselves teachers even though they are no longer in a classroom, no longer teaching. I get that for officers – they need to be on full-time (though the VPs, including my opponent, teach one class a day. That’s a good thing.)
But when we get to the 102 member executive board, there are but 29 designated teacher slots. Who fills the rest? District Reps, who teach one class a day – but usually that “class” is substitute coverage or bus duty. Full timers – people who work full time at the UFT, and out of the classroom.
Is that the way it should be? Is there an alternative?
I compared United for Change (my coalition) candidates for Exec Board at Large with Unity candidates. I think the results pretty dramatically reveal what each group thinks about whether teachers should run the United Federation of Teachers.
Those “1 class” folks are District Reps – it is possible that some teach a class, but most do sub coverages 1st period, or bus duty. I am unsure of some of the Unity folks – please send me corrections if you notice something wrong. I also might have the level wrong on some of our UFC candidates. Same thing – send me a correction if you notice something.
I think there are some very good people on the Unity side – the problem is not individuals. The problem is the overall – the concept that teachers only have a marginal voice in how a teachers’ union is run.
A United for Change leadership will center the voice of in-service teachers (and paras, secretaries, OTs, PTs, counselors, etc). This is a good change.
Vote for change. Vote for United for Change.
What if UFC wins? #3 $$$
Money!
This is a UFC virtual round table, talking about raises.
#3 Raises
I am the UFC candidate for High School Vice President. If we win I will be one of 12 members of the administrative committee (AdCom) and will help shape the new leadership’s agenda.
I cannot speak for our Coalition – these are decisions that need to be made. But I know our platform, and have a good idea about some decision.
We want raises above inflation. That’s in the United for Change Platform. The City Comptroller is already talking about 0%, 0%, 1%. Something has to give.
How would a United for Change leadership attack this? (and based on their record, what would Unity do?)
The Set Up
Today a Bronx math teacher who is a former Bronx HS Chapter Leader, and my former student asked me:
“How are you getting our raise to adjust to inflation? How could NYC afford that??”
I tried an answer – I ran a little long – it was hard. And then United for Change High School Exec Board candidate Nick Bacon (New Action Caucus) replied. And privately United for Change High School Exec Board candidate Ronnie Almonte (MORE) replied. I publish, below, the question and the three responses, as a sort of virtual round table.
The Round Table
- Keith M – a Bronx math teacher
- jd – me, the UFC candidate for HS VP
- NB – Nick, a UFC candidate for HS Executive Board. I think he will win.
- RA – Ronnie, another UFC candidate for HS Executive Board. He should win, too.
KMS: “How are you getting our raise to adjust to inflation? How could NYC afford that??”
jd: don’t know that we can – but that has to be the goal.
The City usually comes with a “financial package” (the sum that they are offering) and the union begins by trying to reallocate where that money goes, without challenging the actual figure.
So #1, by not accepting the City’s first number.
Unity likes to report on a lowball number from the City, and then after negotiations report on the actual number, which is higher. It’s a deceptive practice, with the members being deceived. Already they have used the Comptroller’s 0% 0% 1% to lower expectations – so what is their intent? Get us to 1% 1.5% 2% and make us feel grateful?
So #2, by not sharing fake numbers with members, or sharing numbers with context.
What happens next is important. The City says “0, 0, 1” and Unity usually says – “lets trade off some savings to the city (give backs) so we can report a larger number” This is done in private, in secret.
#3, we share the City’s offer with the membership, and begin discussions within our chapters, throughout the union, about how we should counter. We do not negotiate in secret.
#4 We could accept 0 0 1. We could accept health care give-backs to raise the numbers to 1 1 2 or something like that (just kidding – Unity might do that, but UFC is not trading away healthcare – never). We could shift the money in other ways.
Unity’s premise has always been, accept the City’s number, but repackage it to make it look acceptable to the members.
#5 We could challenge the budget. The Comptroller’s budget is, in elements, neoliberal. It sees providing service and paying salaries as necessary evils. COVID funding is dropping? The Comptroller looks to see how many people need to be laid off – never what tax breaks to developers need to be eliminated. And the current budget, the biggest single cut is to the Department of Education (one third of the total cuts). We should show the budget to members. We should have our own experts offer alternate City Budgets – A budget for people, schools, for the people of NYC.
There are also alternatives to just using the negotiating table.
#6 A fight to change the size of the package, and to challenge the budget would need to be robust. We could campaign to force the City to raise its offer – work with community groups, parents. We could demonstrate, rally. We could build support within our union, and from our allies. This looks like what more militant unions around the country have done.
This is not a possibility with Unity in charge, with Mulgrew meekly accepting what Adams offers, and seeking to hide from members how small the package really is, or trading away horrible give-backs to make the bottom line look larger.
NB: Jonathan Halabi all good thoughts. This is definitely the right approach. In talking with members, I’ve come to also think that if after all these strategies, the city doesn’t agree to new salary rates that at least match inflation, a next idea is to agree to the de facto pay decreases only under the condition of an end to extended days. Yes, if the city can’t afford to pay us the inflation-adjusted pay rate we agreed to years ago in exchange for Monday and Tuesday time, we don’t just passively accept it; we push to reduce our work week, possibly even starting with this as the only scenario under which an absurdly low pay increase would be accepted. At least then we have time to earn the lost money elsewhere. I suspect that this could lead to buy in from parents, whose kids can currently only do after school programs Wednesdays through Fridays as a result.
RA: This is great Jon, thank you. I would also say that money is always there – NY has the most billionaires in this country, and Wall Street is loaded with dough. Like you mentioned, instead of accepting the city’s figure, we fight for a larger share of the pie. Of course, to do so requires power – something we have less of if we, like UNITY, restrict ourselves to the respectability of the negotiating table. This is why it’s crucial to build a strike-ready union. Our ability to withdraw our labor is our greatest weapon. When we’re organized, we can credibly threaten our use of it. UFC’s priority is to organize our chapters and empower them with transparency and democratic involvement in union business. Our strategy puts us in a better position that UNITY’s to win good contracts.
And?
This is a discussion, not a decision, and not a proposal. There are voices yet to be heard. And yet you see the direction some of us are thinking in. We would welcome your comments, thoughts, contributions. And please, feel free to disagree. The open exchange of ideas (without rancor, if possible) helps produce better policies.
And yes, engaging members in ongoing discussion, and asking members to engage in such discussions in their chapters, that is part of what United for Change intends to do.
What if UFC wins? #2 Medicare
What if UFC wins? How do we save Medicare? How do we keep our Platform commitments around healthcare?
#2 Medicare
I am the UFC candidate for High School Vice President. If we win I will be one of 12 members of the administrative committee (AdCom) and will help shape the new leadership’s agenda.
I cannot speak for our Coalition – these are decisions that need to be made. But I am relatively confident about some decisions.
Overall Policy
The United for Change platform reads:
No Corporate Interests in Education and Healthcare: We will fight to remove private greed from our
United for Change Coalition Platform
profession, our livelihood, and our schools.
● Reverse privatization of Medicare for NYC municipal retirees. No in-service healthcare givebacks.
Support single payer public healthcare.
Medicare Advantage Plus
At this moment, the privatization of Medicare (Mulgrewcare) is stalled. There was a successful retiree campaign. And while Mulgrew could try to bring it back, if he is defeated, UFC will not.
In-service Givebacks
There have been in-service giveback in healthcare in the last two contracts. Bigger copays. Forcing new teachers into HIP. Probably more stuff. Reversing those? I don’t know. Could be tough. But if UFC wins we have committed to not bargaining for further cuts. (Notice that language – UFC will not bargain for further cuts. Unity HAS bargained for healthcare cuts. I’ll get to that in a bit).
Single Payer
Support for single payer is the UFT’s official position already. But when the New York Health Act came up, Unity said no no no, we don’t support single payer in New York State, only federal single payer. And then when it looked like the NY Health Act had a chance, Unity joined with insurance companies to actively campaign against healthcare for all – Mulgrew was the most prominent labor leader to support Aetna over New Yorkers.
It will be easy to switch our position back, since it is our official position already. And then there is real work. The current version of the bill does not include retirees who live out of state – we will need to work with bill’s sponsors to correct that before it can pass. (Here I am, saying we should take a seat at the table. That’s usually Unity’s position – and they give up all kinds of stuff to get there. But with the NYHA, Unity has been saying no to our allies. UFC will talk with our allies.)
A little history
In 1995 a 0-0 contract was defeated by the membership. Leadership could have learned “listen more closely to members before proposing a contract.” As chapter leaders, we know this. We should never offer up an SBO except when we are certain the SBO will pass resoundingly.
Instead leadership drew the wrong lesson. They vowed to make the money in each contract look bigger than it actually was.
Swapping time for money under Bloomberg made the percent look higher. It was a trick, an illusion. And it was suggested and supported by Unity.
Offering $1000 or $500 bonuses at the start of a contract gives the illusion of more money, but the one time payments, which now arise every other contract, would easily be quickly exceeded by even the smallest percentage raise.
But the worst is from the last two contracts. To make the percentage increases look bigger, provisions for “health care cost savings” were included in those contracts. The City would put an extra percent or two in active members pockets, and the union would work out a way to guide extra dollars into the stabilization fund to even the score.
But the calculation went sour. The union’s obligation outweighed the City’s. Finding some waste at a hospital or two was not enough. They reworked our insurance to increase copays, to create tiers of hospitals. They forced new members in HIP for their first year. Just a year ago Mulgrew thought changing that to five years was worth looking at.
And it’s still not enough. Fast forward to today, and Unity is looking for extra sources of money. What do they see? A way to make money by playing with retirees’ health care.
We can argue back and forth about Medicare Advantage vs Medicare for today’s retirees. It’s probably an individual decision. (We should not argue about which program would be part of a better society, which we would want for coming generations.)
Is there a problem today?
What would UFC do? We would need to look at the actual finances of the Stabilization Fund.
How bad is the situation? I don’t know. And I don’t take Mulgrew’s word for it. We will look. We will let our members see. We will bring in experts to look.
And together, openly, we will decide if there are immediate steps that must be taken.
But we will not know until the real information is out in the open. And the only way to get there is to change our leadership.
What if United for Change wins? #1
What if UFC wins? Should we clean house? Or tidy the corners?
#1 Personnel
I am the UFC candidate for High School Vice President. If we win I will be one of 12 members of the administrative committee (AdCom) and will help shape the new leadership’s agenda.
I cannot speak for our Coalition – these are decisions that need to be made. But I am relatively confident about some decisions.
What about people? How will we marry the need for change with the need to keep the union functioning?
Officers
Obviously all of the officers would be replaced. The current officers would return to teaching, or retire. When Michael Shulman (New Action) beat George Altomare (Unity) for high school VP, Unity sued, won a new election, and Mike won again. Then George retired. But who knows – some of these officers might be more comfortable returning to the classroom.
District Representatives
District Reps are easy – it is a UFC platform priority to return to election of DRs, presumably as before, by Chapter Leaders. There might be details to work out, but this could happen pretty much right away. I am not sure if that call belongs to the President, the Staff Director, or AdCom, but it is one decision or one quick vote. The fascinating part – which current District Reps would run? And which current District Reps would win? There are some who are genuinely popular with their Chapter Leaders and provide good service, who would win, and some horrible DR’s who should save themselves the embarrassment. But which are which, and what of those in the middle?
Vice Presidents
VPs are currently elected at large – but it is another priority to have VPs elected by division. That process is more complicated, requiring a constitutional amendment – and probably would take months – and would take effect for the 2025 elections.
Employees in the Departments and Boroughs and Offices
The practice of hiring people based on political loyalty (or caucus membership) and not competence or ability to serve the members – that Unity practice would be immediately ended.
But that does not answer the question of current employees.
What would happen to the UFT employees in the offices and departments – both at central, and across the five boroughs? Huge question, and one that is not in our platform, and not up to me alone.
The union would require major change – but the union would also need significant continuity. We must continue to function. Questions of who have been serving our members well, and who have not, would be a big part. Also who is willing to work with new leadership, and who is not. And who is willing to follow new policies, and who is not. Again, this is not my call, but I have a strong opinion
I’ll say this: Much of the full-time staff was hired because they were loyal to Unity. But membership in Unity should not, in and of itself, be disqualifying. That’s my opinion.
Would there be a process of reapplying for those jobs? Or general performance reviews? Would this happen right away? Or after some time? Would some jobs be exempt? I can’t say at this point.
I can see the argument that clerical positions are not political. And on a related note, I’d like to see the “call center” eliminated, and a return to retired UFT members on the switchboards. Contracting out is gross. That our union does it sickens me. Every time I hear about members lost on hold, my blood boils.
It is my opinion that, today, competence is not spread evenly through the offices and the boroughs. The amount of change would necessarily vary.
Think of it this way – there are highly competent people who joined Unity as the only route they saw available to do work on behalf of members. And there are others who joined Unity as a stepping stone to doing less work than a classroom teacher.
Does this imply that a clear majority of those working for the UFT today would still be working for the UFT after a UFC victory? Perhaps.
A specific category of interest would be the Special Reps – appointed and unelected. There is a wide variety of people in those roles – from the very valuable, to some others… I can think of people that I could not imagine capable of adequately serving our members. And I can think of people who no one would possibly want to lose.
There are high profile names who members speak of highly. I am not embarrassing anyone by calling them out here – but there are definitely people I trust, and many members trust, who should remain central to the functioning of the UFT.
PM Staffers
What about PM Staffers? These are full time DoE employees, UFT members, who have after-school jobs at UFT central or a UFT office. Many work in borough offices.
These are full of aspiring Unity loyalists – many who are looking for a route to a better job. But there are also those who are quite valuable to our members. I would be in favor of a process of reviewing all of these many appointments, and changing some, but aggressively confirming that those who provide valuable service to our members will continue to do so.
And again, going forward these jobs would be properly posted, and open to any UFT member. The days of hiring based on caucus, with a UFC victory, will be over.
Staffing
Big picture: Is the UFT overstaffed? Or is it understaffed? Or just right?
That’s a good question to end on, because I know the answer.
The answer is, today we do not know.
First step would be to name a committee, or a person, but probably a committee, focused on staffing questions.
And one of their first tasks would be need to be a full review – of staffing levels, and of what that staff does.
Last Note
These are my thoughts/opinions. DR and VP election is in the UFC platform. The rest need to be decided. And I am writing about policies and decisions, some of which, if the UFC wins, will be made without me. Some, I may participate in deciding. But I thought it was worth sharing a few thoughts as ballots start reaching members.
Playing with Doomsday in Math Class
John Horton Conway died of COVID-19 on April 11, 2020. That was a Saturday, as my Number Theory students will tell me.
This past week I taught them about Doomsday, Conway’s quick mental date calculation tool. It was fortuitous that we reached “applications of congruence mod Z” around the second anniversary of his passing.
Here’s how it works: January 3, February 28 (or January 4, February 29 in a leap year), April 4, May 9, June 6, July 11, August 8, September 5, October 10, November 7, and December 12 all fall on the same day of the week. (Go now and check your calendar, if you need to. I will wait). But that’s a pretty awkward looking list. Let’s try again:
4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10, and 12/12. There’s the evens.
Now, if you remember “working 9 to 5 at the 7/11” you can get the odds:
5/9, 7/11, 9/5, 11/7. Nine to five, backwards and forwards. Seven-eleven, backwards and forwards.
That leaves February 28 or 29, or, as I call them, March 0.
And finally January 3 or 4, but I’ve got nothing cute there.
So the day of the week 1/3 (or 4), 3/0, 4/4, 5/9, 6/6, 7/11, 8/8, 9/5, 10/10, 11/7, and 12/12 fall on is the same in any year, and Conway called that day Doomsday, and called days that fell on them “Doomsdays.”
So if you knew that Doomsday 1999 (in class we paused here to play the song. We like our math with some cultural enrichment) was a Sunday, you would know that, for example, 12/12/99 was Sunday. And with a little ingenuity, add 14 and the 26th was a Sunday and subtract 1, 25, and Christmas 1999 was a Saturday. (pause here so you can look it up). The 4th of July? Well 7/11 is Doomsday, Sunday in 1999, so exactly one week earlier was also a Sunday. Veterans Day? November 11? Well 11/7 is Doomsday, Sunday in 1999, so four days later (or three days earlier, if we are clever) is Thursday. And Labor Day? I bet you get that one easy.
So how do we get the Doomsday for a particular year? There are 4 parts to this little calculation:
- If it’s a 20xx date, start with Tuesday (not for Two thousand, but that’s a good way to remember). If it’s a 19xx date, start with Wednesday (I have no good way to remember)
- Then look at the xx part of the date, and divide by 12. How many times does 12 go in? Add that to the day from part one.
- When you divided by 12, what was the remainder? Add that to the day in part 2.
- Take the remainder from part 3, and divide by 4. How many times does that go in? Add that to the day in part 3.
We need an example: 1957.
- It starts with 19, so W
- 57 divided by 12? 12 goes in 4 times. Add 4 to Wednesday (or take away 3) = Sunday
- When we divided 57 by 12, what was the remainder? 9. So add 9 to Sunday – but wait, add 7 then 2, either way, Tuesday.
- The remainder from part 3 was 9. Divide that by 4. And 4 goes into 9 two times. So Tuesday + 2 = Thursday. Done.
Doomsday 1957 was Thursday. Halloween was Thursday. September 5 was Thursday (so September 2 was Labor Day).
Another example: 2020:
- It starts with 20 which sounds like 2, Tuesday
- 12 goes into 20 once, add one to Tuesday. Wednesday.
- 20 divided by 12 has a remainder of 8. Which is 7+1. Add a week to Wednesday. Still Wednesday. Add one more. Thursday.
- The remainder in part 3 was 8. Divide that by 4, we get 2. Add 2 to Thursday = Saturday
Doomsday 2020 was Saturday. March 13? Well March 0 was doomsday, Saturday, so two weeks later, March 14 was Saturday, and the day before that was March 13, which must have been a Friday.
And April 11? Since 4/4 is Doomsday, Saturday, April 11 is also Saturday. And also Doomsday. Which in a strange way is appropriate for the date of Conway’s passing. At least it would have given him something to boast about.
By the way, I didn’t ask you to check March 13, 2020. Most of us already know by heart, that was our last regular Friday in New York City Public Schools before the pandemic closure.
Anyhow, by the end of the week I was pretty sure my students had annoyed many of their friends and family members by practicing their Doomsday skills in the cafeteria and at the dinner table. Today I looked straight at the class: “What’s today’s date?” “April 8” “Friday!” (weird pause) “Am I right?”
Just silly fun. But I showed them video of Conway describing his method. I remembered, and that mattered to me.
A two year memorial is not usually a thing, but March/April 2020 were such a trauma that it is important. I sent out a reminder to our staff a week ago, we passed the two year mark for a colleague, and also for a peace officer who worked in our school. And I commit to remembering my other fallen friends, colleagues, relatives over the coming few weeks. Some people want to move forward, and close that door, but it is too soon to forget.
And that’s something small, but significant, that I’d like to address, if we sweep in the elections (I know, I know, long shot, but we’ve been challenged to think). I have been to maybe 150 – 200 Delegate Assemblies. I must have attended 200 or so UFT Exec Boards. How many moments of silence have I stood for? No idea. 50? 100? 200? I think all but a handful, literally a number I could count on one hand, have been for members of Unity Caucus. If we win I swear that I will push us to recognize good people of every caucus, and people of no caucus.
Memory should outweigh politics.
Running for UFT High School VP – how I got started
I am running for United Federation of Teachers High School Vice President, with the United for Change coalition.
Who am I?
Jonathan Halabi. I teach mathematics at the High School of American Studies at Lehman College. I am a twenty-five year high school mathematics teacher. I am a twenty-year UFT chapter leader. I’ll tell more, but let me start by going back.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
When I was a kid my mother was part of an organizing drive at the hospital where she worked. Actually, that drive wasn’t easy to get started. The hospital workers union did not want to get involved unless there was a real chance to win. So, when I was a kid, my mother hosted meetings in our living room, with workers from different departments, figuring out how to get more people interested. And they did. It took a couple of years. But 1199 came in, and ran a drive. There was a real organizing headquarters in a storefront around the corner. But our kitchen got busy too. And then there was the vote, and the workers lost 45 – 55, and the administration retaliated against my mom. She won a victory against them for harassment at the NLRB, only to lose on appeal. In any case, she ended up working at Yale, and was part of the historic clerical and technical organizing drive there. And when she moved north, and got a job as an administrative assistant at Harvard, the newly formed union there made good use of her experience, and had her explain what it was like to gain their first contract at Yale. In any case, I wasn’t around for that campaign – having left for college. But the hospital drive, and the campaign at Yale, I remember those clearly. And it’s how I think of my mom back then – out for hikes, and over dinner, and organizing.
So I came to New York, eventually got a City job (Department of Transportation), quit that, finished the college degree I’d never finished, and didn’t really have any prospects. My uncle, who’d just retired from a long (maybe 35+ years) teaching career, including the last two decades at Murrow, said “teach.” “I don’t want to teach.” “Do you have any other prospects?” I didn’t have an answer. So February 1997 I started subbing, and pretty soon one school, Christopher Columbus High School, started calling me every morning, and then told me to come in whether they called me or not. I got hired for September, teaching three sections of MP1 for freshmen, one section of MQ1 for freshmen, and one section of MP1 for repeaters…
I signed a union card right away, volunteered to sign up for COPE, and thought that would be the extent of my commitment. I knew how consuming union work can be, and this teaching was HARD. I would be a good, quiet UFT member. But after a couple years the chapter leader approached me. In short order I got pulled onto the consultation committee, and elected Delegate. At Delegate Assemblies, at Fashion Industries, I always sat with my District Rep, David Shulman, in the raised seats, back right.
One Election Day PD (back then, all the high school math teachers in the Bronx would go to one school, and run PD for each other. It was some of the best PD I’ve ever had) – but one election day PD the Bronx Superintendent ranted at us and insulted us and declared we did not know how to teach, but that he was going to fix that by bringing in a new math program, Math Connections. We were not delighted, although I think I was the only one in the CCHS breakout room who gave the sentiment clear voice. (Very clear voice. I can’t write it here, but ask me, if you like, and I’ll tell you). A few months later I got dragged to a meet the president event (Randi Weingarten) and the old-timers in my department told me to go talk to some other people, and by the end of the event I was part of a borough-wide committee. Article 24. Professional Conciliation. We won. (and some of the friendships formed then endure today…)
The Bronx high schools were having a hard time of it in the late 1990s. New York State had already closed Monroe. Then Morris. And after I started came Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft. Low graduation rates, mostly. So they closed the schools and opened mini-schools in their place. Why, if the kids stayed the same, and the teachers were the same, would mini-schools do anything? Maybe changing a principal might, but even that… So here’s what they did. They capped the size of the mini-schools. All the extra kids (and the Bronx had lots of extra kids) were shunted to the other Bronx High Schools (three were exempted). Most of those reaching Columbus needed additional academic support. The school, nervous about State review, was shunting money into the wrong places to handle a flood of new students with such needs. And students who were placed into classes with work they could not handle became frustrated, and acted out. The school felt like a mess. I had helped a friend, McRib, get a job teaching math with me during my third year at CCHS, but by the next year I was helping him find another place to teach.
Then we learned. Columbus was under pressure. From the superintendent, from the State, we knew that. But we were attacked from a direction we did not expect. Columbus’ numbers were good enough to avoid closure. But the Gates Foundation was funding a project, breaking up big schools into small ones, and was offering bucketloads of money if districts would agree. Our district agreed – I guess that’s the chancellor. But who expected our union, the UFT, would agree? No one I knew. But that’s what happened. Randi Weingarten agreed. David Shulman always maintained that she’d promised things that were never in writing and never happened. But worse than that, the chapter leaders were not consulted. The members were not consulted. (Years later, Gates admitted it was a bad idea. But damage done, he walked away.)
There’s much more of that story, but here I am, in my fifth year at Columbus. I’ve finally gotten kind of ok at teaching. But the school feels like it is veering off the rails, and we just got this announcement that not only are we being closed, but that our UFT leadership made the deal closing us. Do I stay and fight? Or do I move on? In retrospect, my career path would have been different if I’d stayed. But I would have helped fight, and the same things would have played out. Columbus fought closure longer than the other schools that were on the block that day, but it was indeed finally closed. My presence would not have changed that story. In fact, I started applying to schools, got some interviews, and got an offer from a brand new specialized high school located on the Lehman College campus, near my house. In fact, the job offer came a few hours after my interview.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
In twenty-five years I have learned from teachers at many different kinds of high schools. I have met teachers from miserable cookie-cutter mini-schools with a fake theme and an untrainable principal. I have also met teachers who work in well-run mini-schools with strong themes, developing strong culture.
Some of the things they used to about big impersonal schools were true about SOME schools. But many of the big schools really had communities within them, with embedded support. Most older NYC high school teachers I know have fond memories of their academic comprehensive schools.
During the math war I met some amazing folks from the vocational schools. Imagine taking anyone interested in your trade, with no screen. These were “schools of choice” in a very honest sense.
Transfer schools take a special kid of teacher, with a different outlook. I have met some super-dedicated folks in these schools.
There are consortium schools, and international schools, there are specialized high schools (like mine).
In my years teaching and doing union work and professional math work, I have had the opportunity to speak to teachers from a wide variety of schools. I have also met with teachers from out of the city, other districts, out of state. I have been to some of our other NYC high schools. I even once visited a Brooklyn charter high school.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
The high schools in NYC have an amazing history of union strength, of activism. High school TEACHERS have included some amazing activists (I wrote about one, from long ago). Dave Widom, Chapter Leader once upon a time at Erasmus Hall, tells the story: There was asbestos at Erasmus Hall. He held the membership out of the school. Chancellor later praised him for doing the right thing. Can you imagine if we had chapters with such strength September 2020? March 2020?
The high schools have a long history of challenging authority. The high schools were the only division to ever choose their own VP, not one chosen by Shanker or Feldman or Weingarten or Mulgrew. Michael Shulman (not the Dave Shulman I mentioned above) beat George Altomare. What did the Unity leadership do? They changed the rules so that High School teachers do not pick their own VP any more.
High schools were so independent that Shanker created the HS District Rep job to keep tabs on HS Chapter Leaders. That wasn’t enough control for Weingarten, who changed DR from an elected position to one that she appoints. Ironically, I applied several times for the Bronx HS DR job…
Why did Weingarten agree to break up the Bronx high schools? She may have been dazzled by the size of Gates’ offer. Or she may have been dazzled by his flattery of her. She was certainly susceptible to flattery. Us old timers remember how Bloomberg used flattery to sell her a raw deal in 2005…
But there is another theory, one worth at least considering. Breaking up the high schools meant breaking up clusters of independent-minded UFT members, activists. Breaking up the high schools meant breaking up opposition strongholds.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
I haven’t written much about the 2022 election here. I am running with United for Change – for multiple reasons.
Making high school chapters more active, more involved, more central, and ultimately more powerful has to be a high priority.
I am committed to ending the kind of backroom deals that tore apart my school, other high schools in the Bronx, and others in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens.
And I have to mention health care, including protecting Medicare from Mulgrew, and pivoting our political action (the UFT leadership is opposing single payer. I want to turn that to supporting single payer).
This list could get long, should get long, but not right here and right now. Just one last, multi-parter:
- Members’ should have their voices heard. We need to guarantee that information is flowing.
- This includes shifting focus from consultation minutes alone, to consultation minutes AND chapter meeting agendas. Consultation minutes alone make our members passive recipients of information. The engagement comes at the chapter meetings.
- Chapters elect Chapter Leaders. Good. But Chapter Leaders should elect District Reps. And we all should elect the Exec Board and the AFT and NYSUT delegates. Changes to elections should be one of the first things United for Change should work on.
- But there’s another aspect of member voice that matters, and needs to be recognized. When members are in schools where their administration does not respect them, abuses them, scares them, what do those members do? Stand up! Fight back! is the answer we all want to hear. But what about places where members are brave enough to call their District Rep, but are not ready to organize? When those members make their voices heard, it must be up to the apparatus of the union, the leadership and reps, to speak for members who are not ready to speak, to stand up for members who cannot stand up for themselves. And when that happens, that will be a big change from the Unity-controlled UFT.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
My opponent is Janella Hinds, the incumbent HS VP. Janella has a strong sense of justice, and right and wrong. She is very smart, and an effective communicator. I have worked with her. I have great respect for her. If there were no caucuses or parties, I would probably support her.
But we do have caucuses, and being a member of Unity caucus means at crucial moments (including votes) Janella functions as a caucus member, and not as the brilliant individual who she is. I don’t know what role Janella had in the Medicare Advantage Plan, which was hashed out by the Municipal Labor Coalition, where she represents the UFT.
And so I am running against Janella not out of animus or disrespect, but in spite of liking her, and regarding her highly. We do need a change in the leadership caucus. But I still wish Janella well.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
This is a big election. I guess they all are – right – when does someone tell you an election is not a big deal?
But this is a big one. One party rule is at stake. Healthcare is at stake. A different, inclusive vision of member involvement is possible.
And as the events unfold, we may have an opportunity to reinvigorate our union in the high schools.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
Ballots are going to be mailed later today. Look for them in the coming days.
When you get your ballot, open it and vote. You can vote for me, and the entire United for Change slate by checking the box on the left.
The answer is “Mulgrew, Medicare, Pandemic”
Question: What are three biggest problems for Unity in the April 2022 UFT elections?
I have been involved, one way or another, in 6 UFT elections, pretty deeply in 5 of them, kind of near the center of campaign planning for 3 or 4. And I have never seen such a competitive campaign. Unity, the United Federation of Teachers’ ruling caucus for more than my lifetime, looks worried.
Broad Coalition
United for Change, the opposition coalition, is bigger and broader than anything we’ve seen in these last two decades. Maybe the coalitions is Unity’s biggest problem? You could make that argument. But I don’t think so. We had a pretty big coalition in 2016, and did win the high school division, but it wasn’t scary for Unity the way today is.
Pandemic
Ask a dozen teachers, you’ll hear a dozen different answers about what they are angry with our leadership for over the pandemic.
- Elementary teachers who were forced back to work first, in the fall of 2020, pre-vaccine, with sketchy safety
- Everyone, over “instructional lunch” that apparently was proposed not by the DoE but by the UFT leadership
- Politically savvy members, who couldn’t believe Mulgrew’s email supporting Cuomo‘s decision to make us work through Spring break 2020
- Financially savvy members, who knew we got robbed on the Spring Break arbitration (vacation days are good, but we were owed cash, right?)
- (I do not support the anti-vaxxers – but they are angry about not being supported. Though, frankly, many of them are just angry in general, about the world and the 2020 election, and the gaps in the wall and the 13th amendment…)
- Everyone who read the papers about the “toilet paper test” to pretend that rooms with dead air were actually ventilated
- Everyone in non-ventilated and semi-ventilated rooms who had to keep windows open with frigid temps outside
- Lots of people, about all the secretly negotiated safety protocols
- Lots of people, about the bizarrely and secretly negotiated protocols for remote work
- Techies, when they realized our HEPA filters are not HEPA, and the DoE just lied, and the UFT leaders stayed silent
- Me, and a handful of programmers, over the ludicrous “hybrid learning” that was unworkable, and that we know came from the UFT leadership.
If the pandemic ended 6 months ago, maybe short-attention span members/voters would have forgotten. But the pandemic has not ended, not yet, though we hope we are close. And the wounds of the last two years are fresh on members’ minds. Some blame UFT leadership for doing things badly. Most blame UFT leadership for not doing enough. There may be enough anger that members who have never bothered voting before, some will actually vote this time. And not for Unity.
Medicare
We get it. Healthcare costs are going up.
But who covers the extra cost?
I think WE should NOT. Bargaining with the City to get them to pay is a steep hill to climb, but we may have to. The best option does not solve our problem immediately, but does in the long run: fight hard for single payer. The UFT needs to drop its opposition to single payer.
But the UFT leadership, they think WE should pay, but they are hoping we do not notice it much. That is why their medicare advantage is designed to cover most of the same “things” as retirees’ current coverage. But it will not cover them as completely. It will not provide as much care, just the same type. Mulgrew just negotiated with the MLC, to reduce how much care we get (or will get when we retire and are ready to go on Medicare). Most procedures will be approved. Some will not. I know, I know – your procedure is probably fine. But just because you are ok, try talking to someone who faces a denial. And services denied = less service = cost savings (for the fund) = less medical care (for some retirees).
Our retirees did not fall for this, and opted out in large numbers.
A mistaken policy is one thing. A mistaken policy on retirees’ healthcare? This is healthcare. This is wrong as bad policy. But it is also strategically a potential disaster. It has the potential to upend decades’ old voting patterns (retirees have gone for Unity with about 80-85% in recent years). They made a small version of this mistake 6 years ago with co-pays. But nothing like trying to penalize retirees for sticking with Medicare. $2300 a year Unity was going to charge, to avoid Mulgrewcare.
But there’s also how they played it. The back-room wheeling and dealing, which when it broke Unity’s first response was to say it should have stayed secret, but it was not really secret. And then they shifted their story every time they spoke with retirees. Mulgrew – well, I’ll save him for the third answer. But the answers shifted, and seemed shifty. And retirees are by and large fairly savvy. They were not having this being misled stuff.
And just about everyone knows that retirees would not have signed onto Mulgrewcare voluntarily. That’s why Unity withdrew it. They had no way to get seniors to sign up, except by 1) making it “opt out” instead of “opt in” and 2) penalizing anyone who tried to opt out.
And everyone knows that Unity will try to revive it after the election – unless there’s a huge backlash in the vote. Little motivation there, for people who care about healthcare to return their ballots.
Mulgrew
The broad coalition may trouble Unity. I’m not really including UFC as one of Unity’s problem issues. They did not come out of the Pandemic smelling good. That’s a problem. Attacking retirees’ health care was a huge blunder. But they would probably survive all of these, pretty easily (except in the high schools) if it weren’t for their biggest problem: Michael Mulgrew.
There has not been a less popular president in the history of the UFT. For these last 25 months members have been paying more attention than ever before. And they are not pleased.
It’s policy:
- He gets hammered for Mulgrewcare.
- He gets hammered for the handling of the pandemic
- Some members remember that three ring circus endorsement process that settled on Stringer, couldn’t move off, and then switched to Adams in the general (who is now offering us 0% 0% 1%)
It’s politics, internal and external:
- He supported every move Andrew Cuomo made, even when they were bad for us.
- He never gave the full denunciation of Trump that other union leaders did (and avoided even saying his name)
- The rumors and innuendo about his conservative Staten Island background keep floating out there (although they are not nearly enough to convince real Trumpers to vote for him. Lose/lose.)
- Within the UFT leadership he takes no counsel
- He has surrounded himself with hired non-educators, outsiders.
It’s personality:
- He is rude at the DA’s
- He got caught talking down to retirees
- He sounded like he was lying to retirees
- He’s just not – and I know this sounds shallow – very likable
This has gotten so bad that everyone knows. Everyone in Unity knows. At United for Change we constantly have to pass up the easy cheap shots – we are not just running against Mulgrew – we remind ourselves – we are running against Unity, his caucus.
Unity has taken to hiding Mulgrew. They will not let him debate Camille Eterno. They tell him to eat up all the time at the Delegate Assemblies so there is no danger of issues being discussed. They left him off their mass mailing leaflets, and hide him (small photo, lower center left) on their general leaflet. They try not to use his name. Last newspaper article I saw on UFC vs Unity, Unity wouldn’t let Mulgrew speak, and sent a vice president instead.
Interesting Election
For people who follow elections, UFT elections are usually a snore. 12 officers, 95 executive board seats, 750 delegates, none of these are a contest. There is usually a tussle over the last 7 executive board seats. The high school seats. I held one of them for 11 years.
But this year? At least those 7 seats in play, with a realistic chance for more, and an outside chance for the whole ball of wax. Observers and players alike are speculating about the margin. If Unity somehow loses votes from 2019 (83%), but stays at their 2016 level (76%), that will look like a huge victory for them. But I don’t think that is likely.
Will Unity lose some votes, or will they lose a lot of votes?
Will they take a small hit but still sail in with 72%? If that happens, there’s no mandate for change. UFT members who want something different will be disappointed. Some Unity members among them.
Of course UFC might win, and we should talk about that, a different day.
But if the votes come out and Unity wins, but takes a big hit on the numbers – and that’s what I think will happen, will that send a clear message? Will Unity adjust some of its policies? Will they find a new leader?
Stay tuned – observers. And remember to vote – members!
Shady Unity Health Care Changes – from 2014
In the 2014 Contract – the current story goes – we voted for health care savings (generally cuts) to pay for raises. Many stories have a lot of truth, mixed with some story-telling. This one is not an exception.
In the Spring of 2014 I sat on the Negotiating Committee. A contract proposal came to us May 1. It included a mix of slightly good, kind of bad, and overall unimpressive changes. But health care? There was a line about a huge (in the $billions) savings, but no details.
May 5 the UFT Executive Board met. We had a huge question and answer session. But there was no Memorandum of Agreement. They claimed that it was 50 pages long and they were checking it for grammatical errors. And none of the details about where the health care savings were coming from were forthcoming. And then the Exec Board (minus New Action) voted to send the agreement to the Delegate Assembly.
I’ve written this before. I’ll write it again, I’m afraid. But we should have time to read something before we vote to approve it. When Unity rushes us to approve without reading, that’s a warning. And when they claim they can’t share the agreement because they are searching for grammatical errors…
They did issue a document. It included info about pay, and about educational issues. Know what they left out? Health care.
They called a special contract ratification Delegate Assembly. For March 7. They were in a special sort of rush.
It was a lousy Delegate Assembly. Because members had not had time to read the agreement, there were not good questions. And there were only a few minutes of them. There were still no real answers on healthcare, except for Mulgrew and Artie Pepper vowing up and down that members would not pay, that savings would be found administratively. And debate was brief – Unity loyalists argued for a yes vote.
In a hint of things to come, the vote was to “send and recommend” the contract to the membership. “Send and recommend” means that the union would allow the members to discuss the contract (send) but would push for them to vote yes (recommend). But at the DA Mulgrew kept saying “send” “send” “send” so that delegates would think they were giving members a choice, not a bum’s rush.
When they ask Delegates to vote, and it is not clear what they are voting on, and no one has read the agreement, just listened to a one hour infomercial followed by some shouting… When you see Unity rushing people to vote without thinking, reading, discussing… You know what that means….
Below I have links to all my posts from that month. (Reverse chronological order – if you read them, start at the bottom)
But what’s missing? There’s no discussion of retirees. There’s nothing in my writing, nothing in what Mulgrew claimed, that made me think about the effect on retirees. And while I was considering the balance of give backs and improvements, I never thought “health care cuts (savings) are being used to fund our raises”…
The truth of what Unity was doing to us, and to our future selves, was hidden in plain sight. Or would have been, if they had printed it.
What does Unity do when they see a Problem?
When real leaders see a problem they deal with the problem, they try to fix the problem.
But Unity caucus holds for now the leadership of the United Federation of Teachers. I have often accused Unity leadership of hiding problems, rather than addressing them.
When a school is full of untenured teachers, terrified of an abusive administrator, you’d think the DR would march in, with back up, and begin to set things straight. Sadly, the more common response is to say nothing, to hide the problem, to pretend it’s not there. Without opposition on the UFT Executive Board, there are no reports of abusive administrators. Instead instances of bad principals get swept under the rug.
(There was a celebratory report recently on a school that had defeated such a principal – but the pattern is clear – if they had not won, the leadership would have said nothing. And a school in that situation getting help is the exception)
When there was opposition on the Executive Board, we used to call them on it. Teachers from such schools would come in, and appeal for help. But the Unity leadership would point out that the teachers in those situations have often not begun to organize themselves. This is the wrong answer. As union leaders we are supposed to fight for people who cannot fight for themselves.
But today, bizarrely, we have a clearer example of how Unity deals with problems.
In the 2022 United Federation of Teachers elections, the reigning caucus, Unity, is stuck with the most unpopular president in UFT history – Michael Mulgrew. He got a lot of exposure during the pandemic (Town Halls did not help) and a surprisingly large number of members think he’s a jerk. He’s identified with the union’s slow, indecisive pandemic policies and inadequate protections for members. Mulgrew’s tied by his unwavering support to Andrew Cuomo. And Mulgrew is the front man for the Medicare Advantage flim flam. Unity has themselves a turkey.
Unity has a problem. Michael Mulgrew.
What does Unity do when it faces a problem? They hide it.
Last week they mailed – I don’t know – 70,000? 100,000? 150,000? 200,000? pieces of campaign literature to members’ houses. Lots of pictures on those mailers. Know who they left off? Mulgrew.
The high school piece included a list of their candidates who work or worked in a high school. Some have been out of the classroom for almost two decades. One for four decades. One never worked in high school. But you know who worked in a high school? Michael Mulgrew. Except they left his name off the list.
Now they have new literature, with all the officers’ photos. I’ve seen it. Mulgrew is running for an officer position (President). They couldn’t leave him off – but they made him the same size as everyone else (actually, a bit smaller. Richie Mantell is leaning in, smiling at the camera. Mulgrew is glaring from afar.) And where is? Lower row, 3rd from the left.
I didn’t get this in the mail. I went to the Unity Facebook page (like jumping in icy water, or eating a roach – simultaneous tempting and frightening or gross) to see it. I also noticed something interesting; his name is absent from the page.
Michael Mulgrew is a problem for Unity. So they are hiding them.
And that says a lot of what you need to know about how they run this union. When they see a problem, they bury it, or run from it, or hide it.
We need better leadership than that.
Campaign Strategy: hide Mulgrew
Unity has a new campaign strategy. They just sent out 60,000 flyers to teachers. I bet they sent another 70,000 to functional members. Who knows what they sent to retirees.
So 60, or 130 or 200 thousand glossy flyers to United Federation of Teachers members. And you know who’s mug was missing? Mulgrew’s. His name’s not on there, at least on the teacher ones.
I mean, it’s not a surprise they won’t let him debate. If he had a huge lead a debate costs nothing, makes you look open, confident. But this election they are shaky, and not confident in his performance when he doesn’t control the chair.
But leaving his grin off tens of thousands of leaflets?
There’s some professionalism to Unity’s campaign this time. They branded (“we do the work” they say. That’s worth a deeper dive, because much of the work Unity members do is because they have jobs they got in return for being loyal Unity members – jobs that are not open to others). But back to the campaign, they branded. They improved their graphics (somewhat).
And they are adjusting.
They pivoted. They bury the Medicare Advantage issue, hoping “out of sight, out of mind” and that somehow they will hold onto more retiree votes than most of us think they will.
And they have pivoted again. They may have even done some internal polling. They would have discovered what every teacher knows: Michael Mulgrew is not very popular. He’s taking the blame for Unity mishandling the pandemic, sending teachers into unsafe conditions, not backing us enough, or soon enough, inventing “instructional lunch.” He’s taking the blame for sucking up to Andrew Cuomo, looking like a dishrag instead of a union leader. He’s taking the blame for the UFT getting pummeled in the Spring 21 primaries – and Adams – one of the two guys we wanted to stop, becoming Mayor. And he’s taking the blame, despite Unity trying to keep it out of the news, for Unity and the MLC trying to privatize retirees’ Medicare.
In any case, they are hiding him.
Maybe they read what I wrote: Do the Right Thing?
You should read it. I said, for the good of the union, they should remove him. Put in someone else. Almost anyone. This would be bad for me politically – United for Change has a chance (albeit small) against Mulgrew – but we really would not have much of a chance against anyone else. But people are so angry at him, some of that anger gets turned into anger at the UFT, which is bad for all of us. So, even though it would not help me, I suggested they remove him for the good of the union.
But if they read what I wrote – THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT. I meant replace him because he generates anti-union sentiment among our members. I didn’t mean keep him at the top of the ticket, but hide him from view. Your consultants care more about winning than about the health of this union.
March 22, 2020
Those days are both clear, and a blur.
The last regular day of school was Friday, March 13. Opposition people in the union had been screaming for the schools to shut for several days. MORE was actually organizing for a Monday sickout. People in schools with COVID-19 cases were shouting that their schools needed to be closed. But they were not being closed.
Unity and Mulgrew claimed months later that they were trying to close the schools in advance – but there was no indication of any such effort until Mulgrew’s statement on March 13. And no subsequent evidence has emerged. In fact, I still do not understand why UFT officials did not stand in front of those schools with cases and refuse to let members enter. During the asbestos crisis that is exactly what strong high school chapter leaders did.
The UFT’s Mulgrew leadership, while late to the game, did get on board on Friday, March 13.
MORE’s petition was to Cuomo. Once Unity was on board they started Mulgrew’s almost-as-successful petition, which was to de Blasio. Both of those political clowns dithered and argued with each other and refused to close schools. Until Sunday afternoon, March 15. de Blasio announced schools would be closed Monday, and then open Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for faculty only. Close Friday. And reopen remotely, temporarily, the following Monday, March 23.
March 17 was a fairly useless pd day in my school. Who could teach us how to teach remotely? I understand the experience in many schools was similar. Many teachers across the city did not report. I did not come back March 18 and March 19. The benefit (none that I could discern) was not worth the risk (rapidly advancing public health emergency without known limits). Side note: I am grieving, with some of my members, the return of days to our CAR. We are waiting to be denied at Step 2.
When our safety was at stake, they were playing things politically, and safe (for them, not us).
There has to be some accounting, not here, for why there was practically no real support for remote teaching – not from any quarter. Schools were left to their own devices. We made it up as we went along. There was no support, no help.
Anyhow, pd ended for me March 17. It was the last time I saw Ulises Castro, one of our peace officers, and Denis Murphy, one of our teachers (and one of our founding teachers). PD ended for others on March 19.
Those parts are clear. What happened next, for me, is less clear.
I think I left Thursday evening, made arrangements, came back Friday, packed, and left left on Sunday. In any case, by Sunday March 22 I had relocated far north in New York State, to a county that had not yet had a single COVID-19 case. I got a deal on a spot, and the wifi was good enough. I might even get some hiking in.
Spring 2020 was the longest stretch of time I spent out of NYC since 1984. There were things I enjoyed – the outdoors, time with my hosts and their kids and grandkids. I liked walks in the woods. I liked time at the barn. I liked checking my cameras.
The on-line teaching, with no real training, would have been miserable anywhere. But I made the best of it. I was not the worst on-line teacher. But nor was I the best. School year 2020-21 would be considerably more successful in that regard (my school was fully remote, and we organized a schedule that worked for teachers, students, and families – at least as well as any other remote schedule, and better than most).
In any case, the teachers in my school mostly wanted to start teaching later in the day – after kids were up (not a bad guess that many students would make sleeping in a daily habit). So what did I do? I posted on-line lessons. I rewrote lessons into short texts (not phone texts, but like mini-chapters from books) designed for student learners to read and learn from directly. And I set up 8 – 10 office hours (I called the time “coffee”) every day, and required regular attendance at some office hours each week.
I felt, at times cowardly. I had run away from New York City, my 36-year adopted home. I missed cheering the hospital workers. I wonder what it felt like to be here. But I was glad to be safe, to have clean air, not to worry every day. I don’t know if I made the right decision – but I live with it – it was the decision I made.
I came back once to get a different computer. I was in and out in an hour or two. Early April? I came for a few hours one day in May. But I didn’t come back for good until the summer, the end of June. The apartment building was eerie. My apartment was somehow strange – everything was where it should be, but I had time-traveled 3 months ahead. I remember the second day back, my first day outside, avoiding people, avoiding touching surfaces, not knowing what to expect. Walking to Van Cortlandt was easy, and it was not so hard to avoid people. The grocery store though? I remember my first time inside, and how strange and foreign the whole experience seemed. But that’s another story.
There are tens of thousands of stories like this – teachers individually doing our best to rationally plan for our work, for our students’ learning, and for our safety – while our political leaders grandstanded, stalled, postured – and provided no useful guidance.
Saving Medicare: Why is Unity anti-Optout today?
Last Spring, Summer, and Fall
Retirees opted out of Medicare Advantage Plus (aka MAP, aka Mulgrewcare). Not all. But many. Many of the city’s retirees. They opted to keep Medicare with the current reimbursements. And pay the Mulgrew-penalty ($191/month) rather than find out how bad the preapproval process would be, and how many doctors were really not going to accept the new privatized plan.
Back last spring, and over the summer, and into the fall, while Mulgrew was trying to sell Medicare Advantage, I understand why he might have pleaded, bullied, and tried to trick retirees into not opting out. And man, did he try.
He had probably promised Emblem or Anthem or the Alliance or whatever that company is called (you know, the insurance company, the one making the big bucks even though they never take your temperature or test your blood or perform surgery) – he probably promised them that he would keep some high number of retirees in MAP. The more retirees who opted out, the more he freaked out.
But today?
Almost three weeks ago a judge said the City and MLC and UFT could not penalize retirees with a penalty for not choosing their preferred plan: Medicare Advantage Plus. Mulgrew wanted to fine members who kept their traditional Medicare – judge said no. There’s huge holes in that decision. But now the City is appealing and Mulgrew says, for now, MAP is not going to start.
So why is the RTC in Florida circulating information telling retirees not to opt out? What difference would it make if Mulgrewcare is DoA?
New information and updates regarding the NYC Medicare Advantage Plus Plan
The NYC Medicare Advantage Plus Plan is not being implemented on April 1, 2022.
Retirees do not need to opt out of the Medicare Advantage Plus Program in order to remain in Senior Care or their current plan on
April 1.All retirees will remain in their current plans until further notice.
We will post updates for retirees as we have more information.
For additional information, you can call the special Alliance call center at 1-833-325-1190, Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Well, there’s a rub. What if they are planning to wait until after the election, and then revive their assault on traditional Medicare? Then it would make sense for them to continue to campaign against opting out. And that, I am sorry to say, is what I think they are doing.
Why else does Mulgrew say “the UFT is withdrawing its support for starting [MAP] on April 1”? What date does he really have in mind?
And, if he is planning to bring this monstrosity back, shouldn’t retirees who were planning on opting out go ahead and opt out, just to be safe?
Mulgrew on Medicare?
I wanted to share the audio with you.
It wasn’t secret. Mulgrew posted it here.
You can click the link. But it says “This track was not found. Maybe it has been removed.” Indeed. I wonder why.
He was proud of that tape. Apparently. Until he wasn’t.
He sounded so smug. As if he knew more than anyone else on that call.
You could have heard him sounding like an overconfident used car salesman.
You could have heard how condescendingly he spoke to our retirees.
You could have heard him boast how Medicare Advantage Plus (aka MAP, aka Mulgrewcare) was better than real Medicare.
You could have heard him brag that he was under no obligation to tell retirees that he was renegotiating their health care. You could have heard him ignore the significance of pulling so many people off of Medicare.
You might have heard him explain that once he was done forcing retirees off of Medicare, that he was going to completely revamp health care for in-service members. Shudder.
You could have heard him suggest that he might restrict new hires to HIP for their first 5 years.
I mentioned this to a Unity supporter. “Come now, you know it is politics. Everyone knows he doesn’t mean what he says to members.” Something to think about, right?
By the way, we all used to be able to choose our healthcare from when we were hired. But Unity’s last round of “cost savings” forced new hires onto HIP for their first year. And now he’s thinking about 5?
And “health care savings?” That is Unity’s way of saying “extra costs for members that save the Stabilization Fund some money.” For you and me “cost savings” means we pay more.
But I can’t share this with you. I can’t share the audio tape. It was an audio tape that Mulgrew had made – that he proudly posted – until Unity stopped being proud of it.
I mean, they could put it back up, and you could listen for yourself. Or you could trust me. But I don’t think you can trust people who hide evidence.
The audio tape that Unity deleted was from a May 4, 2021 retiree call with Michael Mulgrew.
Who should we keep secrets from?
My phone rang. My cell. I was in the program office at school. It was late September, 2009. I was busy.
Program changes had just finished. I was teaching 3 classes, but each one different. Algebra. Geometry. Combinatorics.
There was a mayoral election campaign in full swing. Eight years of Bloomberg was the legal limit, but with enough money, apparently, you can change the limit. He was running again. And he was in the lead. In an act of gross cowardice, Mulgrew and Unity were preparing to stay out of the election, to give Bloomberg a free pass. (In case you don’t remember, Bloomberg’s third term was his most destructive.)
The Call
But the phone call had nothing to do with the election. It had nothing to do with my classes. It had nothing to do with programming.
Hello? It was a NY Daily News reporter. She was calling to ask me about contract negotiations. (Well, maybe it was related to the elections, that’s one theory.) The reporter asked me about a contract demand – was it true that the UFT was going to ask the city as part of contract negotiations to return to “unit costing”? And she read me some language. It was precisely the language the UFT was using.
“I am in favor of a return to unit costing. As far as negotiations, the UFT is developing many demands, but I am unable to comment on any of them at this time.”
The reporter knew I was in favor of a return to unit costing. I had written about it on this blog. And the rest, the negotiations, Mulgrew required us to sign “confidentiality agreements” that promised not to discuss negotiations with anyone. I signed, and abided, by that agreement.
Not So Secret
Those words the reporter read to me? They were mine. Not quite word for word. I suggested them at a meeting of the full (300 member) negotiating committee, and they were popular enough to include, but Mulgrew had a lawyer work them over. So it was weird not being able to confirm that the words she was reading me were actually words I had written and a team of lawyers had rewritten. Weird.
And what about the secrecy stuff? The current UFT leaders, Unity caucus, often repeat, like a mantra “we do not negotiate in public.” Except, sort of, it looked like they did. The reporter knew every word of a specific demand. She probably had every word of every demand. I got the call because, given what I’d written publicly, she figured she’d get a good quote. And to be clear, the 300 committee members did not get the text – we just discussed it. If she had something in writing, it came from the leadership.
And “unit costing”? I’ll take a look back at that, in a fuller post. But in short, it was the practice of giving schools a specific number of teachers. It was replaced by a new sort of costing, and a new sort of funding, and a new sort of transfer, a new sort of school governance, and a new policy about closing schools, that combined to make principals not want to hire more experienced teachers at the same moment that more experienced teachers were being forced to transfer. But more about that, and the culprits in a really nasty story, another day. For now it’s good enough to know that in 2009 the entire UFT, more or less, agreed with me that going back to unit costing would be a good thing.
Not So Secret Here, Either
Fast forward a week. I was on the “executive committee” of the Negotiating Committee. It was no longer 300 people. I was in a group of 30. And big day. Big day. We walked into a room. Filled the back and the sides. Table in the middle. Mulgrew waited. Through the other door some City or DoE people walked in.
James Hanley, the City’s chief negotiator, shook hands with Michael Mulgrew. They sat. Mulgrew began reading demands. Something about money. Hanley responded – don’t remember 13 years later exactly what – but I think more or less “there’s a package; we can tweak details.” Then a second demand. Then Mulgrew read my demand, quickly. And Hanley responded “not a subject of” and I think the phrase is “impact bargaining” but I’m not sure, but whatever it was, Hanley said it instantly, with no hesitation. He knew what to say, exactly what to say, upon hearing a fairly complex demand. Because… He already knew what Mulgrew was going to say. And Mulgrew knew what Hanley was going to say. No hesitation, no question, they just moved forward.
Did Everyone Know? No
“We don’t negotiate in public” apparently means – we leak our demands to the DoE and to reporters. Who do Unity leaders keep negotiations secret from? Not secret from the politicians. Not secret from the press. Mulgrew and Unity keep negotiations secret from our members.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Many unions involve their memberships in contract negotiations. Most make their list of demands public. While some unions keep some aspects of negotiations confidential, none that I know of go to the bizarro extremes that Unity and Mulgrew go to. And, frankly, we can’t point to wild success coming out of this policy. We’ve had more givebacks than gains in the 26 years since I started.
LA does things differently. Chicago does things very differently. I don’t know that they are doing any better than us. But their negotiations did not fail because they shared information with their memberships.
Hiding stuff from members is just bad policy. It should stop. “We don’t negotiate in public” is just Unity shorthand for “we limit information we share with our members.” An informed membership would be a stronger membership.
Keep the content of negotiations secret?
Or keep the fact that negotiations are happening secret?
That would have been a good close, except we are not quite done.
Last spring Mulgrew got busted. He was negotiating (really Unity, through the auspices of the Municipal Labor Coalition) with the City to force our retirees off of Medicare into Medicare Advantage (private medicare). And another union went public. Our retirees did not know. They heard about this from members of other unions.
This one also needs another post.
But get this – when Mulgrew got caught, he said, “we do not negotiate in public.” Really? Now he’s not talking about keeping the demands secret. No one knew he was negotiating. He hid the whole entire negotiation from our retirees.
This is even WORSE than Mulgrew swearing me to secrecy, then having his staff leak the demands to reporters and city officials. Back then, all of the UFT, teachers, secretaries, everyone, knew they were negotiating, just they weren’t sharing the details.
With Medicare Advantage, Unity managed to hide from our retiree even the fact that negotiations were going on at all. The nerve.
To end the policy of hiding information from members we will need change. United for Change.
Yes, UFT members can defeat Unity / Mulgrew
A small win in April 2021. A bigger one in November 2021. And now, today, a huge win on healthcare.
For years, when I urged a vote for this or that candidate, or on a particular resolution, people would say “I agree, but you are wasting your time. Unity always gets what it wants. They control the votes.”
Well, not so fast.
2016 Election
Way back in 2016 New Action (I was a member) and MORE ran together against Unity. We did not win the presidency – only took 21%. But we won the high schools. Me, Arthur Goldstein, Ashraya Gupta, and four others took seats and used them to ask Unity hard questions and to bring forward real needs and concerns of our members. But there were no wins in 2019. It’s been a while. Actually, there were bigger wins decades ago, but that’s decades ago. I’m only looking at recent years.
Two Recent Delegate Assemblies
Last spring, in April, the United Federation of Teachers Delegate Assembly rejected Mulgrew and Unity’s endorsements for a number of New York City races, including Brooklyn Borough President, and Comptroller. The DA wasn’t rejecting the policy – we accepted the same endorsements the following month. No, we were actually rejecting how Unity was running the Assembly, and especially Mulgrew’s dickish behavior towards elected delegates.
And then, just a few months ago, at the November DA, Nick Bacon almost placed an item on the agenda that all health care changes go to the Delegate Assembly before they go to the Municipal Labor Coalition. Lost 49 – 51 (Unity won – they don’t want members having a say in health care policy. It was actually HS VP Janella Hinds who rose to speak “We have never had votes on this, have never engaged in that kind of debate in past, asks for no vote”). But that same meeting Unity asked for support for legislation to reduce class size (fairly ineffective legislation at that) and resisted members who were trying to make reducing class size a priority for contract negotiations. And guess who won? The members. 61% – 39%. And then the members won another vote. In the entire history of the UFT I do not think there has ever been a Delegate Assembly where members outvoted Unity twice. And in November they did exactly that, and almost succeeded a third time.
And Today, Medicare Advantage Phhhpt
From: UFT Press Office <press@uft.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 2:53 PM
Subject: Mulgrew on NYC Medicare Advantage Plus Plan
Contact: UFT Press Office | press@uft.org
Dick Riley | C: 917.880.5728
Alison Gendar | C: 718.490.2964
Melissa Khan | C: 646-901-1501
For Immediate Release – Thursday, March 3, 2022
UFT President Michael Mulgrew on NYC Medicare Advantage Plus Plan:
We believe in the NYC Medicare Advantage Plus plan and the excellent range of benefits it would have provided our retirees. However, the judge’s recent decision will effectively eliminate the savings the plan would have produced and that would have been re-invested in health benefits for our members.
While the NYC Medicare Advantage Plus plan is sound, the program has suffered from serious implementation problems and poor legal arguments, particularly on the part of the city.
Our retirees deserve better. Given the judge’s order, the UFT is withdrawing its support for starting the NYC Medicare Advantage Plus plan on April 1, 2022, and will urge the Municipal Labor Committee to suspend its efforts to begin the program until all the implementation and legal issues are resolved.
###
And a detail not to miss:
Mulgrew and Unity wrote a press release. They think that speaking to the press is more important than speaking to the members. This is not an occasional mistake. This is legit how they think. Sometimes they show they don’t know how to talk to members. Others they just ignore the members. And it’s been going on. And on.
Mulgrew and Unity wrote a press release. They forgot to tell retirees what they recommend. Not that, were I retiree, I would trust Mulgrew and Unity today. But they didn’t even bother pretending they had any advice to give…
Who Pays for Prior Authorizations?
Under Medicare Advantage Plus (MAP) there will be prior authorizations for lots of procedures that did not have prior authorizations under Medicare. The list I found is long, and likely incomplete. So there will be staff, probably dedicated staff, reviewing requests from doctors to do stuff that the doctors think needs to be done.
Background
Medicare Advantage Plus is Medicare Part C. It is privatized Medicare. It is the plan the Municipal Labor Coalition (MLC), including the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), pushed for, and negotiated with the City to contract for. The provider will be called “Anthem” – I think. Some members are calling the plan “Mulgrewcare” with pejorative intent – attaching Mulgrew’s name to something has become a cheap way to indicate disapproval.
It is the MLC (and UFT’s) intent to force as many Medicare-eligible retirees as possible off of Medicare and onto MAP (Mulgrewcare). They have a two-pronged approach:
- Charge retirees $191 each month to remain on Medicare
- Limit the times that retirees can switch off of MAP back to Medicare.
As there has been significant pushback from retirees, the UFT leadership’s stance has shifted – Mulgrew was trying to get everyone off Medicare as quickly as possible (last July? was his initial target) but now says the later date (it still hasn’t happened) was his idea. The promotional pitch has also shifted as pushback has changed – at first it was about the secret negotiations, then about the overall sneakiness, then about the lack of documentation, then about providers who might not accept the plan, etc.
What I see? A significant number of Medicare-eligible retirees are talking about opting out (a third? a quarter? of those eligible. I’d like to know the real number – but maybe we don’t know yet. Maybe we can’t know until there is an implementation date that arrives without a judge stopping it.) And it is those with higher pensions, with greater financial security, who are announcing that choice. It says a lot – for the most part those who are opting out are those who can afford to.
Prior Authorizations Question
I’m not wild about clerks making decisions about my doctor’s judgment. Maybe they will agree with my doctor. But if they disagree, will I miss a necessary procedure? Many of us have gotten preauthorizations – no problem – right? Except until there is a problem.
I have a genetic condition that lifts my lifetime risk of colon cancer from 4% (general population) to 50%. I need to get screenings more often than most of you do. And last summer I got a call – some clerk in Arizona let me know that I’d been preapproved. Made me wonder – who the clerk was (not a doctor, clearly), and how they decided, and what would happen if next time the clerk got it wrong. I think my doctor has a pretty good idea of what I need, and no one I know volunteers for extra colonoscopies – why was this clerk even involved?
Here’s why:
Cost savings
Not my cost. The insurance company’s cost. And the Stabilization Fund’s costs. That’s another post for another time. The MLC and the City and the UFT Leadership are more concerned with the health of this fund than they are with the health of our retirees.
- Cost savings for NYC ✔️
- Cost savings for Emblem / Anthem ✔️
- Cost savings for the Stabilization Fund ✔️
- Cost savings for you or me? ❌
It costs money to staff offices with people to process prior authorizations. Emblem or Anthem or Aetna do not spend money they don’t have to. In fact, the prior authorizations are designed to SAVE money. Just not our money.
How will prior authorizations save money? They have to save enough to cover the clerks’ pay – and then some. The only way prior authorizations save that money is by denying coverage.
Prior Authorizations? Prior Denials?
There are prior authorizations. It costs money to pay the clerks to authorize procedures. Anthem only gets that money back by denying procedures. Which procedures will be denied?
Ask Mulgrew – which procedures will be denied?
Remember, there is no savings to Anthem or the City or the Fund unless they are denying procedures that used to not require approval.
Ask Sorkin and Usatch from the Welfare Fund – which procedures that members currently get will be denied?
No insurance company will spend money that it is not getting back. Anthem is paying clerks to work on prior authorizations (and denials). Anthem already knows – probably – why the costs make sense to them. They already know what they are planning to deny.
And so does Mulgrew. Ask him. Ask Mulgrew which members are currently getting procedures that he wants to cut off.
Prior authorizations only work for a profit-making company if there are prior denials. And the UFT leadership would not enter into these agreements without knowing exactly what these prior were going to be.
They know. They should tell us. They will not tell us unless they feel like they have to.
No retiree wants to save Anthem money by having a necessary procedure denied. But that’s in the works. Only, we don’t know today which retirees, and which procedures.
But Mulgrew and the Welfare Fund know. Ask. Ask. Ask. Remind them, if they have information that we need, they need to share it.
Retirees need full information, not infomercials.
Successors – More Arithmetic
“What comes after seven?” “Eight”
“What comes after sixty-three?” “Sixty-four”
The Pitch
“What comes after one thousand twenty-six?” “One thousand twenty-seven.”
I’m not sure why the room full of freshmen was playing along with me. Maybe just because their teacher was letting them. Maybe it was a break from solving equations with polynomials over denominators. Maybe they were curious why the strange teacher was asking them such simple things.
“One thousand twenty-seven comes after one thousand twenty-six? Where did you learn that?”
“Kindergarten!” “First grade!” “Really, your first grade teacher taught you about a thousand twenty-six? My first grade teacher didn’t teach me about a thousand twenty-six.”
I addressed the rest of the class “Who here studied a thousand twenty-six in grade school?” “Well, not exactly…” “No, who studied precisely a thousand twenty-six?”
I paused for a beat. For another. “So how do you know what comes next?”
“There’s a rule.” “What rule?”
“Add one!” “Add one? You went to a school that taught you to add before they taught you to count? Who else went to a school where you learned to add before you could count?” The pause was shorter this time.
“Change the six to a seven” It was the first thing this student had said, quiet, maybe a little shaky. “OK,” I got quieter, too “now we are getting somewhere. What comes after three hundred ninety-one?” “Three hundred ninety-two. Change the one to a two.”
And the rules came pouring out. Until I got to five hundred thirty-nine.
And that was my recruitment pitch. Word spread to the other freshmen classes, and I got a few intrepid mathsters, signed up for a once a week arithmetic seminar.
The Seminar(s)
In the first post I explained what was coming. I would make arithmetic strange, and really think about it, and sneak some abstract concepts in. We would reexamine most of it with a new set of symbols: {}. I would teach them a bit of history – 19th century ideas about the axiomatization of arithmetic. I’d also get a discussion going of what the students learned about arithmetic, and how and when they learned it. That’s always fun. Maybe some reflection on pedagogy. I’ll add some history of Sputnik and New Math.
The more advanced group will review proof by contradiction, learn a little proof by induction. Then it is off to examine the Peano Postulates. And, for the older kids, use them to construct the natural numbers, proving every single step.
This work I have assembled from memory, from a wonderful class I took with David Rothchild a quarter of a century ago.
Successors
The first lesson in both seminars is “successors” – what number comes next.
Here’s my set of rules (I pulled it out of the students):
The first numbers succeed each other in this order: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. After that, for numbers past 9 that end in 0, change the 0 to a 1. Numbers that end in 1, change the 1 to a 2. And so on. Numbers that end in 8, change the 8 to a 9. But numbers that end in 9 require two steps. Change the 9 to a 0, and then follow these rules for all the digits to the left of the (new) 0.
And then, in response to my blog post, a later student of Rothchild’s shared the actual handout – I handed seen it in years. I am not far off, but for numbers that end in 9, he treats the rest of the number as a string. It probably works better. He doesn’t have the language for our number system, but if he did it would look like:
If A is any whole number except 0, the successor of A0 is A1, of A1 is A2,… of A8 is A9, and of A9 is B0, where B is the successor of A.
We both move next to the “Abnormal Number System.” As far as I was concerned, Rothchild invented this. David insists he learned it from someone else. Consider the numbers /, ∆, ☐, /❍, //, /∆, /☐, ∆❍, ∆/, ∆∆, ∆☐, ☐❍,…
Now, my version of the class asks students to come up with a “successor algorithm” for the abnormal number system. Here is what I found from Rothchild:
Here is my expected answer:
Notice his deft use of A and B. Also notice, he is treating ❍ as his first number. I start at /.
Where do we go next? Counting, predecessors, and addition (where I believe I diverge from my teacher). And we must talk about ❍ vs /. Stay tuned.
Arithmetic
I am teaching arithmetic this term.
It is not ordinary grade school arithmetic. Instead, my students are revisiting arithmetic with fresh eyes.
Here’s what we will do:
- Learn arithmetic again. Kind of regular arithmetic – except instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,… we will use /, ∆, ☐, /❍, //, /∆, /☐, ∆❍, ∆/, ∆∆, ∆☐, ☐❍,… I will call this “the abnormal number system”
- Sneak in some new concepts and definitions. For example, we will dwell at length on the idea of “what comes next” and give it a name – each number has a “successor.” We will attempt to create formal definitions for addition and multiplication, and blend them with our work.
- Teach a basic outline of the 19th Century history of the axiomatization of arithmetic
Here the seminars will diverge. There are two seminars – one for 9th and 10th graders. The other is for 11th and 12th grades. It’s the latter that will forge ahead further, while the former might just get a taste.
- Review proof by contradiction (all of the juniors and seniors previously had a seminar in Set Theory or Logic with some substantial indirect proof. This is review).
- Learn some simple proof by induction. Do some standard high school level problems. Though I am not sure if ‘standard”\’ is the right word – it seems that very few high school students see any proof by induction at all.
- Construct the Natural Numbers, using a modified version of how it was done in the late 1800s. This is Very Hard. We will use the first chapter (10 pages) of this text, reading every line, doing every exercise, completing every proof*.
How was it done in the 1800s?
Warning – gross oversimplification coming: In the 19th Century some mathematicians wondered why Geometry has Postulates, and Undefined Terms, and Formal Definitions, and Theorems, and Corollaries, and Lemmas – but Arithmetic does not. And so they did the obvious – they created Postulates, and Undefined Terms, and Formal Definitions, and Theorems, and Corollaries, and Lemmas – all for Arithmetic. The postulates are called Peano Postulates, after Giuseppi Peano.
A couple more things:
The two seminars have fourteen kids each (just worked out that way). They meet once a week each (by design). I am requiring reading and some exercise outside of class, for preparation. I am not grading homework, and there are no tests or quizzes. We are meeting to discuss mathematics, to ask questions, to explore new terms and notation, new ways of looking at things that once seemed familiar, and to consider what it means to prove something.
An instructor defined proof as “that which convinces.” Maybe I heard that in 1996 or 1998. I am convinced (ha ha) that I have not encountered a better definition. Ever. I share it with my own students.
The instructor was David Rothchild. I say “instructor” because that is what he was. David was quick to correct anyone who called him “professor” or “doctor” – he did not have a PhD. I met him at Lehman College, where I finished my undergraduate studies, and began my graduate work.
In the mid and late 90s I sat with Rothchild for four math courses, courses for aspiring teachers of mathematics. In 601, I think it was, he taught us to view arithmetic with fresh eyes, through a system he called “abnormal arithmetic.” He used four symbols: a slash, a triangle, a square, and a circle. He snuck in concepts, such as “successor” that we would use later in the course – during those harder parts when he introduced Peano’s Postulates. Few courses have had a greater impact on my decades of teaching mathematics.
Two years ago I channelled Rothchild, and tried my own “Axiomatic Arithmetic” – based on my memory of his course from over 20 years earlier. It worked well. That seminar started in person in February of 2020. We suspended it for a few weeks when the pandemic hit, but moved to remote, and met every week for an hour of pure math, until late June. An alum, now a math major at a prestigious institution wrote “I was behind much of the class when it comes to content but I’m pretty far ahead when it comes to proofs. Axiomatic arithmetic was honestly the best way I possibly could have prepared…”
This year I am trying to do it a little better. We will be in person for the full seminar. That’s a plus. And there has been some hype about how challenging it might be, and what an accomplishment it will be to complete this. Eyes wide open. Very eager eyes. It helps.
I will write up synopses of some of the seminars. I will get to ‘successors’ later this week. Maybe ‘predecessors,’ too. The older kids have added. The younger will get their chance after break.
I’ll show you, as I we go. This is fun.
Do the right thing?
The UFT’s leadership has an opportunity to make the union stronger. Will they do the right thing?
My union is the United Federation Teachers (UFT). The leadership is completely controlled by a “caucus” or political party, whose politics generally align with centrist Democrats – but whose day to day politics are about maintaining power, and not much more than that. This caucus is called Unity. I think they should be replaced.
But today Unity controls the leadership of the UFT.
Over the course of the pandemic members of our union have seen our union leadership in different situations and different ways than before the pandemic. Policies affected us directly, in what were truly life and death situations. Members who never paid attention paid attention.
And now that members were paying attention, what did they see?
Policy, Pandemic, Conciliation
Policy letters, sent out by the UFT President, Michael Mulgrew, of Unity Caucus. Letters that endorsed bad decisions by Andrew Cuomo. Letters that put school opening ahead of our safety. Letters that promoted weirdly risky policies, such as instructional lunch, or weirdly bad planning, like the 2020-21 hybrid plans. Members who had not paid attention to union correspondence before were now reading the stuff, and concluding that we had a problem, a problem named Michael Mulgrew. He may not have written the stuff, but as we talked to friends, coworkers, teachers in other schools, the easy target was the man with his name at the bottom of the email.
Running Meetings Poorly, and Being Obnoxious About It
Delegate Assemblies are usually poorly attended affairs. But during the pandemic they went virtual, and many more people dialed in than used to attend at 52 Broadway or Fashion Industries. And what did they experience? Strange, long-winded, sometimes hard to follow reports – and then the chair of the meeting, UFT President Michael Mulgrew of Unity Caucus, being a jerk to chapters leaders and delegates he disagreed with or didn’t like. His behavior was so bad that last spring Unity lost a vote (they never lose votes, at least until now) based on member reaction to his juvenile behavior alone. That was bad.
There were also town halls, attended by huge numbers of members, who heard the same rambling, though there was far less of the jerky commentary. But between Delegate Assemblies and Town Halls many more members became familiar with the UFT leadership, and did not love what they saw. And they identified what they saw with the person of UFT President Michael Mulgrew of Unity Caucus.
Endorsements
Probably not too many people paid attention to the UFT’s endorsements in last spring’s primary elections. The endorsements are all about handing cash to candidates, not about GOTV (get out the vote) which the UFT can no longer reliably manage. But for those who paid attention they got to see the worst UFT election season. Ever. And not just the mayoral race. And as Mulgrew ran the endorsement events like an emcee, the massive screw ups that were the UFT’s eventual decisions were pretty tightly tied to him.
Medicare Advantage / Mulgrewcare
And the kicker happened this spring. Unity is committed to private health insurance, as their rep explained at the last DA. They are opposed to single payer. We all kind of knew this. What we didn’t know was that they were negotiating to protect the Stabilization Fund at the expense of our retirees. Mulgrew’s folks worked with the MLC to cut a deal to push our retirees out of Medicare into Medicare Part C (private care). They did it in secret. Not just the details in secret. Even the fact that they were negotiating was kept secret. When UFT retirees found out (another union told ITS members, and word spread) – when UFT retirees found out they were pissed and scared about losing medicare, but they were super-pissed about being deceived. Retirees were incensed. Many blamed Unity. But when UFT President Michael Mulgrew of Unity Caucus came personally to “explain” – they got even angrier. Unclear. Deceptive. Smug. Michael Mulgrew came to attract much of the blame personally.
In the Field
I hear members who never cared about the union, deriding the union. Some of the sentiment verges on anti-union sentiment. Our brand – “UFT” has suffered damage. And it is OUR brand – all of us – this is our union. When someone is pissed at Mulgrew and says they no longer trust the UFT – you see that? It hurts all of us.
Opposition / United for Change
A coalition formed to oppose Unity in this election, made up of individuals and caucuses, many of whom are working together for the first time. In the past the odds were massively stacked against oppositions in what were essentially winner take all elections (except for a handful of divisional seats). But this time, because of bad pandemic policy, and bad endorsements, and because many members have seen and not liked big UFT meetings, and because Unity decided to mess around with Medicare… and because the opposition is united… I’d rate us as a long shot, but with an actual chance. Maybe 1 in 50 or even 1 in 20 instead of 1 in 1000 from elections past? I don’t know – I’m making up the numbers based on instinct, but probably not that far off.
In any case. say we have a 3% or 4% chance instead of 0.1% or something like that. A lot of that difference is based on members’s anger directed not at the union as a whole, but at the person of UFT President Michael Mulgrew of Unity Caucus.
And, I have said “we” and “us” – I am running with United for Change. I also say “we” and “us” for the UFT – because while I do not support the reelection of this leadership, it is still OUR union. I am fiercely proud of our union. I want it stronger, better.
So?
So this.
So United for Change has a better (still slim) chance in the election because Michael Mulgrew is at the top of the Unity ticket.
But the UFT is weaker, has less support from members, with all the negative attention Michael Mulgrew has garnered. We all suffer with him in the lead.
We (United for Change) cannot do the right thing here. It has to be Unity. Make our union better. Shore up support from members whose confidence in the union has been shaken through the pandemic. Even though it hurts my election chances, I am asking, pleading with Unity, do the right thing. Remove Mulgrew. Replace him with someone, anyone. Promote him to some position where members don’t see him.
Because in the end, no matter who wins, we all lose if members are turned against our union, against the UFT.
Unity members, do the right thing.
Birthday, 2022
It was my birthday Friday. Not much of a day, and no real celebration. I was wrapping up scheduling, and preparing myself for the new term.
In my morning classes I recognized the day before I was born, Freedom Day, February 3 1964, when almost half a million students boycotted NYC schools to demand integration. Big win, right? Wrong. They got a study and maybe a promise of a commission and then nothing. The talking heads in the video below, actual participants in the boycott, discuss that NYC schools were more segregated in 1964 than ten years earlier when Brown v Board became the law of the land. Well, NYC schools are more segregated today than in 1964. Here’s the clip I showed:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1513593365492105
I remembered Freedom Day last year, too. I still am flabbergasted that this huge Civil Rights action in New York City is not a required subject/topic in our schools’ history courses. It is safe for New Yorkers to rail about segregation and voter suppression and slavery in the south. But the courage to cast a critical eye on our own history, especially when there are implications for policies today – nah, that courage is depressingly rare.
Walked into one class, African-American Studies, looking for volunteers to swap sections of another class. But the teacher knew what day it was, and asked the kids to sing happy birthday. They did. This version:
Cool music from my childhood. Reminded me of some other stuff. Thought about uptempo funk that I like…. So I wrote “falletinme” on the board and no one knew it, so the teacher googled it and played this:
And that was kind of it, besides calls from friends and family. And a gazillion facebook posts. Now, I know that facebook prompts you, and you just type in “happy birthday!” which holds down the meaningfulness, but I don’t care, I like them, and acknowledged all of them (Saturday) and answered many of them individually.
Saturday was a “signing party.” There is a coalition challenging for the leadership of the UFT – United for Change. To get on the ballot, petitions have to be signed. The current leadership (Mulgrew) handle it easily – but for our coalition the process forced us into tight spaces on a short timeline as omicron is still fading. They definitely were trying to put as at risk (and denied appeals for time, for waiving the requirement since they knew we could do it, for electronic signing, etc). Since their goal is winning, not the health of the union, and certainly not the health of their opponents, this is understandable. But still despicable.
Anyhow, Saturday was a signing party. And I did a bunch of the behind the scenes logistical work. One of the coalition partners, MORE, brought most of the people. And it was tremendous. And here is one of the main organizers singling me out for credit:
It was kind of cool to be treated as the sage veteran with wisdom and experience. I like that role.
Sunday McRib asked me to come out to Jersey. We hiked twice in January, and two weeks ago we faced some icy conditions. We discussed microspikes, and he went out and bought some. So when I got there, he asked if he should bring the spikes. Yup, why not, be safe, just in case. They were still in the envelope they were shipped in.
I picked a spot 25 minutes WNW of him, where we’d never been. Apshawa Preserve. And sure enough, we got there and asked two hikers a bit older than us if we would need spikes on some of the trails. “Everywhere” they told us. So we strapped the spikes on, and walked cautiously, getting used to the feel. Mixed ice and dirt/mud. And then nothing but ice. We gained confidence as we tested the traction. A mile in and we were stomping the ice, like kids stomping through puddles. I can’t remember the last time I saw McRib having so much fun.
And here’s me, with Butler Reservoir frozen behind me.
We walked out a bit on the reservoir. We saw what the ice fishermen had left behind. And then stomped back to the car.
A nice end to a fairly uneventful birthday weekend.
Lousy week, good story
Last week was lousy. Omicron was raging. I had issues to deal with. Not good. I didn’t write. Not at all.
The long weekend was welcome. And after three days, I’m feeling a little better. I don’t know exactly why, but I’ll make a list of four possibles.
1. Staying on top of a resolution. A book a week. I meant it. And I have been making it. I opened with A Game of Birds and Wolves about women in Britain who joined the naval auxiliary during WWII and worked on war-gaming the battle of the Atlantic. And this week I read Spider Silk: Evolution and 400 Million Years of Spinning, Waiting, Snagging, and Mating, clearly written, organized by evolutionary twists and turns, with nice illustrations. Fascinating. I met one of the authors four years ago, and upon hearing the book broadly described, declared that it reminded me of something one of my favorite authors, John McPhee, might have written, and “of course you have heard of him?” He had been the author’s advisor at Princeton. I can still taste my shoe.
2. I made winter soup. It’s not the right name. I don’t think it has a name. But It is a ponderously heavy concoction of bones and lentils, split peas and barley, with carrots, celery, onion and parsley. With salt and black pepper. On a cold day it warms me from my core, and reminds me of winters growing up…
3. Walks on Saturday and Sunday, one with a twist. Sunday was a nice stretch, a little longer, and quite needed. It was not bitter out. Saturday was bitter. Saturday we batted around ideas for where to go, and settled on a lake in north Jersey, in a park big enough to have trails move away from the (exposed) lake shore. The wind added some bite, and the temperature was low by the water. We passed some people ice fishing, and turned to head away from the water.
We must have missed a turn off and reached a small camping/parking area when we heard a pick up come up behind us. He parked and got out and it wasn’t a ranger. We said hello, and so did he, and we asked what he was doing. Checking his beaver traps. The beavers dam the streams and flood the park and the Parks people think they are a nuisance and this guy gets permits, and comes in and traps. He sells the pelt, and the meat. Beavers are vegetarians, he explained, they taste good. And we explained we were hiking, and he warned us about ice patches under the snow on the trail we were pointing to. It wasn’t snow everywhere, but there were patches, more in come places than in others, so it was a worthwhile warning.
So we move up the trail, a little slowly because of the snow patches, and in case of ice, and we are passing a frozen pond on our left, and we hear something. The trapper who had been fiddling with his equipment by the truck has now caught up with us. His traps, he motions, are on the pond. And my friend wants to follow him, and at first I’m nervous about walking on a frozen pond, but my curiosity got the best of me, and I’m stepping and sliding forward and avoiding weak spots.
We came past something that could have been beaver construction to his first “set.” He showed us the sticks and wires. But the trap was in the water. He pulled out a hatchet to chop through the ice. Now, I’ve never seen a beaver trap before, so I didn’t know what to expect. Those of you who know, it was a Conibear 330. As he chopped through the ice he talked. He was local. He learned to trap from his father who used to trap when he didn’t have work. He plucked out ice chunks, and tried to free the trap, but could not, not yet. This trap (as he continued to chop) had been his father’s – the trap was maybe 70 years old. You pass down your traps, he tells the two of us who have never trapped, with care, like you pass down your guns, he tells us, who own zero guns between the two of us.
And we were not about to see a beaver – he could see the trap had not been tripped. Did it look like jaws? That was my question. No, it’s not a snare. And a few minutes later he almost yanked it out – cleared more ice, and then showed us. It was like a big mouse trap without the base. We wished him luck.
4. Omicron has peaked in NYC. And I’m still negative.
I knew this last Monday or Tuesday, it’s true. The shape of the curve looked like the one from South Africa’s omicron surge, so the timing was about right. And the surge was slowing right before the weekend, so the little drop after was probably more than weekend cases being reported on the wrong day. And I read about the virus load in waste water in Boston (fascinating, look here or at these charts.)
You can also see above the cases dropping (New York State, no City). But you can also see below, the number of people dying is as bad as last winter, which was pretty bad. Want to keep that in mind and be careful how we use the term “mild.”
JD2718 