Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The UFT After Shanker, Lois Weiner and Bruce Markens

    Uploaded by

    Norm Scott
    4K views10 pages
    From New Politics, Vol II, 4 - Winter 1990

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    From New Politics, Vol II, 4 - Winter 1990

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4K views10 pages

    The UFT After Shanker, Lois Weiner and Bruce Markens

    Uploaded by

    Norm Scott
    From New Politics, Vol II, 4 - Winter 1990

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 10
    vol. UD NewSenes , Winky 1940 Prospects for Chang THE UFT AFTER SHANKER Editor's note: For, more than 25 years Albert Shanker controlled the United Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO union which represents 75,000 teachers, secretaries, and paraprofessionals in the New York City schools. When he resigned in 1985, his hand-picked successor, Sandra Feldman, assumed the presi- doncy of a union which has sparked poitical controversy since its inception. We asked Lois Weiner and Bruce Markens, two veteran teacher unionists, to discuss conditions in the UFT, as well as prospects for change. Weiner ‘THE UFT 1S FREE FROM THE GROSS CORRUPTION, thuggery and gangsterism ‘which pervade some unions, but it is far from democratic if union democracy is defined as governance by the members, with ultimate authority exercised by the ‘union ranks. Although some teachers recall atime in its formative years when the UFT was not controlled by a political machine, for most union members the UFT is a well-oiled machine which restricts the membership to two actions: contributing to COPE, the union’s political ection arm, and voting for the politicians the union machine selects. From afar, the UFT looks like a model of democracy. Its bylaws grant supreme authority to a representative body. the delegate assembly, which can overturn the executive committee's decisions, and the leadership is usually careful to have the delegate assembly approve policy. In practice, the UFT ‘bureaucracy has taken whatever measures have been necessary to ensure that the Gelegate assembly is a rubber stamp. For instance, the leadership jealously ‘guards the names of the approximately 2500 delegates, so that UFT staff, but not the delegates themselves, have access to this information, Debate is still ‘permitted, but arcane procedures for placing items on the agenda preclude even Lois Weiser reaches English atthe High Schoo! for the Humanities in New York CCity and has been active in teacker unios polities for 20 years in California and ‘New York. 68 leadership's contention thatthe membership gives its silent support tothe wan, uo. Distressed by even the appearance of dissent, the leadership ecensons the union newspaper, permiting no dispuistious articles or : severisements in publication financed by members’ dues. Ths policy bas, ot ourse, has been approved by the delegate assembly. ‘Teacher unionists in New York City have no fear of physical assault when they run for office ot oppose Feldman's polices, but other fears can dissent as effectively as overt rrattunion and its largest local, Feldman spends her time overseing UFT aris: She visi a school when the staff demands it and, forthe most pat, her Propowncements about the city's educational problems are more propessive, except when she curries as she did in July when she called i ildren of drug addicts. Feldman's i educational issues has led the press Fra ite hopeful union activists to see he asa kinder, getler union preset Unto as given Shankerism a human face. However, closer enatninatch calc Feats erations are purely cosmetic and that, on balance, Felden has tightened th bureauracy's ep, not losened i. For instance, though Feld, fe Gelegate assembly she has summatily ruled out of order many topies atic Shanker, a more confident oligarch, permitted the body to debate. Feldman visits a school when the members demand it, but once thte she fefends her right to dicate union policy. Por example, Feldsen aida Methatan’s High School for the Humanities when members prorated wes Feldman had advocated changing the school's name to honer Bayard Rustin espite's the staff's objections. She explained that since the faculty's leaders comsige, awn activists who obviously disliked her, she had no obligation to Denese staff's opposition to the name change, because neithes she me tne ‘expands the voting unit, to pack it with more reliable votes. Still, in 1985 an “opposition slate won every position in the high school division, and in 1987, Feldman’s slate won the high schools by a handful of ballots out of some 5000 cast. Obviously, significant numbers of UFT members are dissatisfied and want ‘change, but how can that sentiment be mobilized? ‘The issue has immediate relevance for New York City's unionists and residents, since the UFT leadership drags union and municipal politics to the right, using the union's financial resources and the manpower ofits machine to bolster corrupt clubhouse politicians. The face of city politics would change ‘dramatically ifthe UPT were a democratic, militant union. Furthermore, since Albert Shanker’s conzol of the national teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), rests on the unswerving loyalty of the UFT, loss of this base would ease Shanker’s demise as APT president, a move which would remove one of the staunchest cold warriors from the AFL-CIO excecutive council. Aside from the considerably brighter prospects for progressive social ‘change which Feldmar's defeat would bring, the discussion over strategy is critical because the UFT's problems are endemic to many American unions and to the AFL-CIO as a whole. Like Most UNIONS, THE UFT RESEMBLES a bureaucratic shell mote than a social movement. Although the problems of organizing in the UPT are compounded exponentially by the union’s numerical size and geographical sprawl through all five boroughs, the Fundamental political issue which confronts oppositionist is that the union barely exists aside from the paid staffers who ove their salaries and loyalty to Feldman. Furher, to the extent thet members feel the union’s presence, itis negative. The union leadership has for so long restricted and discouraged activity that union membership has no meaning for most teachers beyond deduction of usion dues from their paychecks. Dues, or the equivalent amount, must be paid ts a condition of employment, but dues are set through formula built into the union's bylaws and thus members have no opportunity to vote for or against increases. Each school in New York City comprises « shop, or chapter as itis called, with a steward or chapter leader. Though the union bureaucracy pays lip service to the importance of having active chapters, in reality independent chapter activity is discouraged. Chapters receive virtually no dues money from union coffers, so chapter leaders who try to breathe life into their schools must subsidize chapter operations out of their own pockets or spend time in fund-raising. Since many high schools have 150 union members or more, high school leaders face daunting administrative and clerical responsibilities, yet the UFT offers them little organizing assistance. Chapter leaders bear the brunt of the membership's discontent, so to win the allegiance of chapter leaders the bureaucracy courts them with pork barrel perks, like convention trips and part-time employment, and the ultimate bait, the prospect of a staff job. ‘A successful opposition must regenerate the union, but that task is fraught with problems which can illustrated by a description of the way the delegate 0 Sisembiy functions. So few delegates attend that union staffers equal or reat re School representatives. Sedly, the delegate assembly serves asa ig teat 10 ‘cover the bureaucracy’s naked sbuse of power, and. salva Political questions, which the oppo: ‘rial for the membership's right to determine the union's position on theca ‘snd all issues, and of our right to debate as equals in every union forum, he basic responsibility of activists in the UFT is to demand that the onitol of the union be restored to its ranks. However, a commitment to this Principle invariably leads to another problem, for not all opponents of the Ube want @ democratic union. In fact, the leadership of the best GrBanized opposition group, Teachers Action Caucus (TAC), is. no mone {ferested in mobilizing union members than Feldman is. TAC, like Feldmer's Unity Caucus, ‘entertain serious thoughts of winning, The strategy of uniting with TAC has been a dismal failure on all counts, 1985, TAC sabotaged efforts to mobilize teachers in the 1 f high schools, arguing thatthe opposition had to appease the UFT bureaueracy, ‘which gearel up to crush the rebellion before it spread to the junior highs and Clementary schools. Activists who wanted to use the election victory to Tevitalize the high school chapters were stonewalled by the officers they had flected. Vastly outnumbered in official bodies, confused by TAC's refusal to tile Feldman et. al. by tking the battle to the members who had elected them, {and out-witted and outmaneuvered, some would add), the opposition collapsed. Despite this sorry spectacle, many activist stil cling to the illusion that joining with TAC to presenta unified slate at election time is tantamount to building an effective opposition. IW REALITY, THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THE UFT is to rebuild it, and that means reviving the chapters. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, a feporter who spent a year in a city high school observed how litle suppor the LUFT buremeracy enjoyed, how hungry most teachers were for a change ‘eptember 17, 1989). As long as activists keep their eyes fixed on the biennial ‘lectone and the debate in the delegate assembly, instead of revitalizing the chapters, TAC's allure willbe ineluctable. Like most of Feldman's support, TAC’s voles are immutable but, even combined, these voters total less than 40% of the high school division. ‘The tlections cre won — and lost — in the high schools and junior highs because of the teachers who fail to vote, close to half of all union members, They are the ‘constituency an opposition concerned with revitalizing the union must organize tnd enerpize, The union is imelevant to them and the opposition has done nothing to change that. “The 1985 election demonstrates that electoral suecess for the opposition iltimately depends on convincing more union members to vote. The opposition slate obtained roughly 10% more votes than it had won for the previous three ‘elections in an election which saw about 10% more union members voting. Frustrated and angered that the UFT had allowed seven months to elapse ‘without negotiating a new contract and salary increase, teachers who usually ignored urion elections cast ther ballots for the opposition in protest. Building fan opposiion means rebuilding the union, against the wishes of the union tbureaucrecy, as well as the Board of Education, and the obstacles are ‘considerable. Teachers who built the UFT 25 years ago remember what working Conditions were like without it and understand why the union must be rebuilt, ‘but many lack the enthusiasm to repeat the job, knowing that their orgit creation cegenerated. On the other hand, retirements are beginning to bring thousands of new teachers into the system for the first time in over a decade. “They could be the base of a vital opposition, since they see the union clearly as 1 defender of the status quo, accomplishing litle. in addition, retirements are bringing demographic changes to the city’s teaching population, and the proportion of minority teachers is rising slowly but steadily. On the other hand, the conse-vatism and oppressiveness of the union bureaucracy are so alienating thar many new teachers find it hard to imagine that the union could be n e something different, something better. Unless they are educated otherwise, new teachers may well lump teacher unionism and the UFT machine together, dismissing both, along with stugele for institutional change. ‘That would be a disaster for the UFT and for New York City's public schools. Though Shanker and Feldman have betrayed teacher unionism’s Promise, they have yet to destroy it. Only the members can prevent that Aestruction by working to democratiz the union, the schools and education, The UFT After Shanker . . . Bruce Markens ‘Tae Unie FeDeraTion oF TEACHERS’ ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE mirrors ‘what the sociologist Robert Michels called the “iron law of oligarchy” or the condition in which the organization “gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors.” The elected leaders, in Michels’ view, come to power because oftheir intellectual superiority. Initially serving on a professional and. volunteer basis, this leadership transforms itself into a fulltime provisional bureaucracy and develops the necessary competency to dominate the ‘organization. The key elements of oligarchic rule include: self-perpetuation in office, perpetuating a system of loyalty to those in power, controlling what issues are discussed by or on behalf of members, and domination of the means of communication to the membership. An examination of its organizational structure and pattems shows that the UFT clearly fits into an oligarchical ‘model.* With the exception of the 1985 election, which produced an unexpected victory for the opposition coalition, the Unity Caucus—headed first by Albert Shanker and later by Sandra Feldman—has perpetuated itself in office by winning af seats on the union's executive board since 1969, Equally important, the success of Unity has led to virally complete contol of the {echnical and intellectual skills needed to operate the union on a day-to-day = The tendency toward oligarchy is not unique to the UFT, but exists throughout the U.S. labor union movement at national and local levels, and includes conservative and [Progressive unions. Bruce NARKENS has taught in the New York City school system for 27 years, serving as a chapter leader and delegate many times. He teaches at the High School for the Humanities and is the school’s delegate to the UET Delegate ‘Assembly. He is independent of all caucuses although in the past, he worked with the New Action Coalition. B é basis, The UFT leadership, for instance, controls the appointment of almost all ‘staff members who must pass a political litmus test before they are hired. Thus, expertise about collective bargaining, about the effective use of grievance procedures, and about dealing with the Board Education and other political and ‘educational bureaucracies is monopolized by the Unity Caucas leaders and their result of the system of loyalty it ddeminds and usually gets. A former high school chapter leader has accurately described the union’s functioning under the guidance of Unity Caucus a a “tum of the century urban politcal machine” that “provides a “basket of fruit’ for those who are new to the system, hands out gifts to those who are most loyal, {ives a little something to almost everyone, and gets back ¢ lot more for itself than it provides." While this writer was referring specifically to Albert Shanker, the former UFT president, his hand-picked successor, Sandra Feldman, a somewhat kinder and gentler version of Shanker, continues to run the UFT ina fashion. DoMinATION BY THE SHANKER-FELDMAN UNrTY Caucus has had the effect of contolling the issues considered and discussed within the union. The union's officers and executive board make crucial decisions inthe name of the union. In theory, the rank and file has an important voice, if not check, on the executive ‘board vhrough an elected delegate assembly of about 2,500 delegates. The leadership proclaims the delegate assembly as “the highest policy making body of the UFT.” The reality is quite different. The typical delegate assembly meeting, scheduled for two hours, consists of at least an hour's worth of informetional reports and responses from the UFT presidert and other elected andlor paid offi wariably presenting facts and analyses portraying the leadership's actions ina favorable light. At most, ten minutes of each delegates’ reefing is set aside for the presentation of an issue not inkiated by the union leadership. ‘That the delegate assembly represents the illusion rather than the reality of rank and file participetion is seen in several other ways, The entire executive board of about 75 members has voting rights at the delegate assembly, often representing a decisive block of votes against consideration of motions critical of established policies. Finally given the severe limitations on real rank and file participation, a vast majority of delegates most often absent themselves from. these meetings. Iti the exception when there is a working quorum—about 500 cout of 2,500 delegates—at delegate assembly meetings. ‘Another element in oligarchic control of the UFT can be seen in the leadership's control over communications within the local, crucial in the * Peter Steinberg, “Building a Stronger, More Responsive Usion: The Role of for LLocalsChapters." paper presented to the Reform Caucus of the United University Professors, February 8, 1985 in Albany, New York. Reprinted in “Brandeis High School (Chaser Newsletter,” February-March, 1985. 1% £ “world’s largest tocal” of over 100,000 members, including about 75,000 active members at over 1,000 work sites. If knowledge is power then the lack of| knowledge is powerlessness. The average UFT member obtains formation about the union through two main sources—the chapter leader and the union ‘newspaper. The chapter leader, as well-meaning and sensitive to rank and file Concerns as he or she may be, must rely on the elaborate UFT bureaucratic structure to deal with the intezpretation of union contacts, to know the meaning ‘of board of education regulations, and to gain access to individuals or institutions outside the union-educational bureaucracies. What is “possible” in terms of pursuing formal grievances or in challenging accepted school policies is often defined by union bureaucrats who themselves are beholden to the leadership that has placed them in power, It is the exceptional chapter leader who consistently challengcs the accepted wivdom handed down by the UET bureaucracy; the average chapter leader does not challenge the system of authority or the values it perpetuates, ‘The union newspaper, often unread by large numbers of UFT members, represents a potential arena for diverse viewpoints. Actually, the paper represents yet another forum for promoting leadership policies. There are ‘numerous pictures of UFT officers in every issue, a regular column by the UFT President and uncritical reports of the leadership's actions. More important Perhaps, is the almost total absence of views at variance with the leadership's policies. Thus, the newspaper often fails to give adequate coverage to the ‘ccasional critical motions presented atthe delegate assembly. Inthe past, it has failed to report motions introduced challenging the leadership's spending of tunion monies, especially on leaders’ salaries and other benefit. It has also ‘refused to publish letters or paid advertisements critical of the leedership's policies. Given THE WAYS THAT THE UFT c1rcumscrines effective democratic Participation, those individuals and groups who wish to make the union more democratic in structure or more militant in advancing the interests of the rank and file teacher face formidable obstacles. Even the most committed individual, for instance, would find it difficult to gain the expertise to challenge the incumbent administration. And, even if such a person could achieve this Knowledge, he or she would have great difficulty trying to communicate with others or in effectively challenging the union bureaucracy. ‘The difficulty, then, of maintaining a sustained opposition lies only partially withthe ineffectiveness of the existing organized opposition. The main ¢lectoral opposition within the UFT since 1981 has been a coslition group called the New Action Coalition (NAC), consisting largely of two caucuses —New Directions and Teachers Action Caucus (TAC). The fact that NAC is an electoral coalition rather than an ongoing functioning group limits its visibility. ‘That NAC has no clear and consistent program also makes it less likely to attract people to its cause. The dissatisfaction that manifests itself every two years ‘when 45% or more ofthe high schools and about 40% of the junior high schools 15 é reject Unity in the balloting for executive board positions has not been effectively mobilized by either NAC itself or its constituent caucuses, ‘More disillusioning for those who would like to see membership dissatisfaction channeled into a more permanent and effective force is the sad experience of the two years when the NAC slate did hold office by winning a high school vice-presidency and six seats on the executive board. The victory represented the first time in 16 years that the executive board included rnon-Unity members and the result was unexpected both by the incumbents and the challengers. It must be noted that the NAC candidate for high school vice-president Had to go through a costly arbitration and revote to finally be seated, The obstacles encountered by the small and isolated NAC contingent elected to ottice in 1989 cannot be underestimated. Nevertheless, the Victory should have foreshadowed the beginning of a new period of growth for an ‘organized opposition. But it did not. NAC lost all its high school seats in the ‘Tue opposition coalition’s failure to capitalize on its electoral success is, to ‘borrow from the stale rhetoric of the 1988 Presidential election campaign, as much 1 matter of competence as of ideology. The NAC coalition was united by its opposition to Unity domination within the union and its desire to limit that power. Beyond agreement on opposing Unity, the two constituent groups that make up NAC are driven by different agendas, TAC is controlled by the remnaats of the old left often motivated by historic hostility 10 the neo-conservative social democrats who run the UPT. New Directions is harder to define ideologically because up until 1987 it was dominated by individuals ‘who seemed more concered with promoting themselves or their organization than with advancing consistent policy positions for changing the union. In its present incarnation, New Directions is no longer dominated by self-promoters, but it still presents few serious alternatives to Unity. ‘The opposition slate elected in 1985, then, represented an amalgam of individuals chosen, at random in some cases, to represent an amorphously

    You might also like