The NYC Teachers
Retirement System (TRS) contacted over 180 retired paras and advised
them they “made a mistake” when their pension was calculated some more
that 15 years ago. Not only are they reducing their pension by half,
they are clawing back the alleged overpayment for the last three years. ...the UFT argue that active paraprofessionals are making an
unlivable wage and even declare war on the Mayor if he doesn’t sign into
law the bill in the City Council to give them a $10,000 ‘respect check’
of Non-Pensionable income. Well a pension that is 2/3 of that salary is
unlivable and now take more than half of that away from them when they
came to rely on that money is criminal. The UFT told these paras when
they called, that there was nothing they can do. The UFT has been
silent on this issue. TRS already cut these
retirees pensions in half beginning with the July pension check.
Well, look at this one. The UFT, with its 3 TRS pension reps sits silently by and not standing up for the affected disabled paras who are undergoing pension reductions due to a mistake made by TRS in overpaying them. A group of UFT paras and retirees have joined with the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees to stand up for them. July 31, 2026 Good Morning, Attached is a press statement from our three organizations. Fix Para Pay is a slate of active and retired UFT Paraprofessionals advocating for better wages to be negotiated by their union. Fix Retiree Benefits is a slate of active and retired UFT members advocating to protect an improve the conditions for UFT retirees. NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees
is an organization of over 200,000 municipal NYC retirees founded to
protect retirees healthcare and other benefits from diminishment in
retirement. Together,
we stand with our retired paraprofessionals today. The NYC Teachers
Retirement System (TRS) contacted over 180 retired paras and advised
them they “made a mistake” when their pension was calculated some more
that 15 years ago. Not only are they reducing their pension by half,
they are clawing back the alleged overpayment for the last three years. You
have watched the UFT argue that active paraprofessionals are making an
unlivable wage and even declare war on the Mayor if he doesn’t sign into
law the bill in the City Council to give them a $10,000 ‘respect check’
of Non-Pensionable income. Well a pension that is 2/3 of that salary is
unlivable and now take more than half of that away from them when they
came to rely on that money is criminal. The UFT told these paras when
they called, that there was nothing they can do. The UFT has been
silent on this issue that needs to end today. TRS already cut these
retirees pensions in half beginning with the July pension check. We
are collectively demanding that they amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law they amended in 2002 under then President Randi Weingarten
and correct this injustice and TRS must pass a resolution not to claw
back any alleged overpayment. MEDIA CONTACTS: Arthur Goldstein: 516-661-3221 Marianne Pizzitola: 631-793-9715
One of the (many) controversial policies of DSA is public ownership of the means of production, which causes outrage. Oh the outrage over the Mamdani plan which the right wing and even some Dems are calling "free food" when in fact it is reduced price food. I find it funny how the anti-Mamdani cabal will hang onto anything they can grab, led by the NY Post.
DSA - NY has called for a takeover of Con Ed and other public utilities. Our water and sewage systems are publicly owned and managed. How would you feel if we sold them off to private equity? The major public entity in this country over the past 200 years has been the public school system, which of course there has been a major move to privatize, with charter schools being the spearhead, but even that is not good enough - thus vouchers. I'm surprised they haven''t moved to make all learning remote and sell off all the school buildings to turn them into condos. Boy, my old school in Williamsburg built in 1904 has high ceilings and big windows. In fact, we have found over the past 50 years that the reduction of public regulation, if not outright ownership, has been a disaster in this country. Think of Chicago selling off its parking meter system. Margaret Thatcher destroyed the public ownership of so many areas of England in the 80s, even weakening the vaunted public health system - yes, in England healthcare was publicly controlled. So here is an article in the July 29 NYT business section, that has not been receiving the outrage from the Wall St Journal - yet. The
new prime minister, Andy Burnham, faulted Margaret Thatcher’s
privatization in the 1980s. He wants an alternative economic model,
especially to run utilities.
Andy Burnham, Britain’s new prime minister, began his leadership
with a full-throttled rebuke of the past 40 years of British
policymaking. Rejecting the sweep of privatization introduced by
Margaret Thatcher, Mr. Burnham said he would bring in a new political
and economic model. A
central pillar of that approach will be more government control over
utilities and services that were handed over to private companies
starting in the late 1980s, like water and energy. Mr.
Burnham was ushered into office extraordinarily quickly. A little over a
month ago, he was the mayor of Greater Manchester in the northwest of
England, without a seat in Parliament. Now he is vowing to remake
Britain, and little is known about the details of his economic agenda. One
result has been the start of a vivid debate about privatization —
whether it went too far and how best to fix its failings. Mr. Burnham
calls for more “public control” of services, not necessarily government
ownership. But the vagueness of the term has left a lot open to
interpretation and speculation. It has come to encompass everything from
a socialist turn into widespread nationalization to tighter regulation
of utilities. Mr.
Burnham said that later this year he would release a 10-year plan to
increase public control and reduce the cost of essential services like
water, housing, energy and transportation. Mr.
Burnham should create the “feeling that the state is back and it’s on
our side,” said Danny Sriskandarajah, the chief executive of the New
Economics Foundation, a progressive British research group. “That’s
what’s been missing.” Arguments about ownership frame the debate.As
prime minister in the 1980s, Ms. Thatcher fundamentally reshaped the
British economy. Her 11-year tenure increased private homeownership,
greatly enhanced the financial services industry and diminished
manufacturing. Her government also privatized huge segments of the
economy, including energy, telecommunications, airports and water. The
resulting companies were floated on the stock market. The idea was to
bring about mass public ownership through these shares, but many
companies ended up in private hands and most were delisted from stock
exchanges. The
forceful opening of the British economy led to wealth creation and
prosperity. It also wrought regional inequality through
deindustrialization in the north and accelerated the shift to an economy
more dependent on financial and business services, which were clustered
in London and the southeast. “In
the 1980s, Britain took some wrong turns,” Mr. Burnham said on July 20,
standing in front of No. 10 Downing Street, just moments after he
became prime minister. “Political power was centralized, economic power
privatized, large parts of the country deindustrialized, and they still
haven’t recovered.” But
is ownership really what makes the difference in how well a utility or
service, like trains, is run? Economists and policy strategists aren’t
decided either way. Mathew
Lawrence, the founder of Common Wealth, a British think tank, who has
presented his ideas to Mr. Burnham’s team, is in favor of some public
ownership. “Public
ownership and public provision are not panaceas, they are tools,” he
said, and shouldn’t been seen as “magic wands that fix everything.” But
previous periods of nationalization, such as after World War II, had
notable successes, including the building of more public housing and the
transformation of the energy system from an inefficient patchwork of
thousands of companies into a few centralized and regional systems. Ownership
is important because it enables profits to be returned to the
government, Mr. Lawrence added, and then a choice can be made about how
to spend them in the public interest. Others
are less convinced. Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the
University of Cambridge, said that how services were regulated and the
sectors were organized to create competition mattered more than if they
were run by private firms or public agencies. There’s
a strong argument, she said, for a system where state-owned companies
compete with private enterprises. That way, public ownership can lead to
diversity in business models, more competition and more informed
oversight. “People obsess too much about ownership,” said Ms. Coyle, who has
influenced policymaking in Manchester and at the national level. “It
isn’t the ownership, it’s the structure of the market that makes a
difference in the kind of outcomes for consumers and citizens.” Some government takeover is already happening.More nationalization is already underway in Britain. On several occasions it has been an act of last resort. Under
the previous prime minister, Keir Starmer, the government had started
to bring the railway system under full public ownership and was pulling
more than a dozen train operators into one public company, Great British
Railways. Several operators were already nationalized by the previous
Conservative government for financial or operational failings. One
of Mr. Starmer’s last acts as prime minister was to complete the
nationalization of British Steel, which operates the country’s last
blast furnaces for making steel. It seized control of the company last
year after its Chinese owner, Jingye, appeared to be trying to shut down
operations. Water
companies could be next. In the late 1980s, Britain went further than
almost anywhere else in the world when it privatized the water
authorities of England and Wales, selling off assets such as pipes, land
and reservoirs. After decades of private ownership, much of the county
is fed up
with rising bills, pollution and chronic underinvestment that followed a
period when billions of pounds were paid out in dividends. A few years
ago, every major water and wastewater company was under investigation
for dispensing sewage in rivers and other waterways. The
poster child of the failure is Thames Water, the country’s largest
water company. Weighed down by enormous debts, it has been on the brink
of financial collapse for years and faces the possibility it will be
temporarily nationalized. It currently has only enough cash to last
until the end of the year. Last month, the government rejected a rescue
plan by Thames Water creditors, which include the large American funds
Apollo Global Management and Elliott Management. Mr. Burnham will need
to decide what to do about Thames Water. For
some, it could be a test case for the rest of the industry. GMB Union,
one of Britain’s largest labor organizations, has called on Mr. Burnham
to “take decisive action and nationalize Thames Water.” Public ownership is about politics, not just economics.It’s
one thing for the government to prop up operators of essential
utilities offering substandard services or in financial distress. It’s
another entirely to bring companies and services into public ownership
on the argument that it’s a superior model. For
some services, the public has taken a side. More than 80 percent of
Britons believe water companies should be run in the public sector, and
70 percent say the same for energy, according to recent polling. Still, widespread nationalization of services is unlikely. Mr.
Burnham said he wanted to be a “business-friendly” leader. His method
of public control is likely to be influenced by changes he made to the bus system in Manchester,
where a franchise model allows a local authority to set the routes,
fares and other conditions, while private companies bid on contracts to
operate the service. And so, in his 10-year plan, private companies are
expected to play an important role. “The
state has withdrawn too far on the basic essentials,” said Mr.
Sriskandarajah of the New Economics Foundation. “But its re-entry
doesn’t need to be 20th-century socialism.”
Important analysis from Marc Kagan and a message to Mamdani who was one of Marc's HS students. His substack is: The Labor Movement is a Mess... and What We Can Do About It In fact, Mamdani identifies Marc as his favorite teacher and they still have a good relationship. I was concerned that Marc would treat his former student with kid gloves. This piece belies that, in a very honest assessment as he gives Mamdani performance grades, the most significant being: On public sector workforce, a D. Now, let’s be fair to Mamdani. He has to live within his budget. If
he chose to shower public workers with money, then that’s money that
can’t be spent on reducing class sizes, or building playgrounds, or
subsidizing affordable housing. Even after we have real socialism, those
tensions will continue to exist. But what I hoped Mamdani would do is to quickly fix outstanding inequities.
The gross underpay of Paras. The gross underpay of Emergency Medical
Techs. I want him to put his thumb on the scale for job security for
CUNY Adjuncts. I wanted – and want – him to tell the
Office of Labor Relations (OLR) – where he reappointed the same
commissioner who’s been in that office since Bloomberg (ugh) – that her
job is to fix problems, not stonewall. I want him to tell agency commissioners that part of “efficiency” is mandatory discussions with workplace-level union reps. That
they will be graded and assessed on their ability to reach mutually
agreeable solutions to problems – worker problems as well as agency
ones. Instead, the City’s labor relations seem like business as usual. I was not wholly dismayed when he answered my question in April about collaborative bargaining
by saying ‘I need to talk to my people about that.’ That’s was not an
illegitimate answer, although a socialist should have labor questions at
the top of their list of issues to address. But who did he talk to -
the same OLR that is the problem?
I think contract negotiations, given the budget issues, will be a downfall for Mamdani. A socialist whose main agenda is affordability, money for labor should be a priority but the pressures for him, facing the enormous enmity of so many groups, that will be a hard pull. Mamdani has made a few errors and as time goes back a mayor's popularity fades. For Mamdani lovers, beware. And Yes, for Mamdani haters, Julie Menin is running for mayor. And her alliance with Mulgrew has already born fruit for the millionaire. NY Post:
United Federation of Teachers boss Mike Mulgrew threatens
“all-out war” if the mayor vetoes the bill to award the cash, but the
mayor owes the UFT nothing — and it’s his duty to the general public to
say no.
No city union should ever get a raise outside the collective-bargaining process: Since City Hall can’t cut union pay in other ways, it’s robbing the taxpayers if it doesn’t make labor negotiate for any hike.
Menin, in fact, should feel ashamed
of letting the giveaway go ahead — this simply shows that the council’s
incapable of being more fiscally responsible than even a declared
socialist.
Ha. Just watch the NY Post pump Menin over the next few years. Imagine the Post supporting the collective bargaining agreement. And if Mamdani, as he should, gives the paras a permanent, pensionable large raise so they can afford to live in the city, the Post will slam him. The 10K was designed to counter the Fix Para Pay election win and it did in the election last year where we had hoped there would be a big turnout against Unity, as an ABCer one of my expectations that we had a chance to win that election. As the ABC crew has been pointing out, the one time only 10k will fade. What's needed is contract guarantees. Mayor Mamdani has argued that it is illegal for the Council to
allocate money to improve public workers’ wages (or benefits) – that all
money issues must be collectively bargained. “The Council’s passage of
this legislation is in direct violation of the Taylor Law,” he says.
There is some discussion that the City’s lawyers will challenge this legislation in court. Now there is some irony in Mamdani reversing himself on the 10k and claiming it violates the Taylor Law, the same excuse Mulgrew has been using to oppose the retiree protection 1096 City Council bill. When the RTC delegates finally got the floor in 1096 at the last DA, Mulgrew ruled it out of order on those ground. While Mulgrew is wrong, Mamdani may prove to be right. In essence he issued a challenge to Mulgrew to solidify the gains for paras in the upcoming contract negotiations.
As Marc points out, Mulgrew is a center/right Democrat, as is Weingarten and the entire UFT/AFT apparatus, despite some progressive rhetoric and Randi's resignation from the DNC - a purely "finger in the air" move. A leader of the DNC lives in my building and rolled his eyes when Randi's move came up and called her a political opportunist - she should wear a sign. Marc cites Daniel Alicea's EONYC:
As explained and itemized in this article by Educators of New York City,
in the most recent contract round, Mulgrew made various concessions
that gave him $450 million to allocate as he saw fit, above and beyond
the “pattern” raise that all city workers received. Mulgrew could have
allocated it to increase Para salaries. Instead, he used most of that
money to give an additional $1000 to each member. I think this EoNYC
image really sums up the UFT’s “Teacher’s first” decision:
Daniel has been doing yeoman work on the para issue: July 11, 2026
Followed on July 19 with:
And he followed up with Part 2
For roughly sixteen years under Michael Mulgrew’s leadership, there
was no fundamental effort to restructure paraprofessional salaries.
Aside from modest improvements to longevity raises in the 2018 contract,
paraprofessional pay remained largely governed by the same pattern
bargaining that had left many struggling to survive. Then came the last contract. The UFT had roughly $450 million in recurring, non-pensionable retention money available.
BTY - listen to Daniel's interview with para Alyson Monzon in his Talk Out of School WBAI program: https://wbai.org/archive/program/episode/?id=66311 Alyson's substack:
In
2024, UFT sent an incredible 734 delegates to the national convention
in Houston, even though its voting strength is not dependent on how many
delegates it sends. UFT delegates to the convention had a voting
strength of 16% of all delegates, but sent 27% of all convention
delegates. This was an overwhelming show of force. No other AFT local
even sent 70 delegates. Meanwhile, the bottom 90% of union locals and
state federations represented at the 2024 convention sent less than 10
delegates each. How much did UFT spend to send 734 delegates from
New York City to Houston for 5 days and 5 nights in 2024? A probably too
modest $2,000 per delegate would come out to at least $1.5 million. And
the bill was likely much higher than that. Needless to say,
most union locals don’t have that kind of money. And even if they did,
their leaders would have to justify to their members why they would
spend their dues for this kind of expense. If the national AFT election
is already locked up, why bother? And so the de-mobilizing, demoralizing
cycle of rule by political machine repeats itself every two years.[i]... The Future of Our Schools Collective
Late BREAKING - Randi Re-elected I pointed out that Unity received 54% of the vote in last year's election but gets 100% of the 750 delegates, thus shutting out the points of view of a significant proportion of UFT members from national and state educational policy debates (those 750 are also NYSUT reps). You will see headlines today or tomorrow announcing Randi's re-election 85% of AFT Locals Do Not Send Delegates to Convention while our dues fuel the UFT spending a million and a half on covering expenses for Unity members. You can see why the threat of losing the NYC local election is such threat to Randi and the AFT/NYSUT/UFT union hierarchy, one reason why ABC's insurgency has made them nervous. Don't think the recent 10k para bonus designed to weaken para anger at their situation is not connected to the threat. ABC had over 100 paras run with them and the para functional chapter is the second largest with 27k members to the 70k retiree chapter, which Unity lost. If the insurgency in these two groups aligned with the growing dissatisfaction among working members, there would be a massive shift in educational unions, especially with both Chicago and LA being progressive unions. Why haven't the revolted after a decade or more in power? Randi has the power of the purse to support them - or not - in their local struggles. Trevor:......leaders of AFT locals,
including mine, would be more open to subsidizing convention delegate
travel if they thought convention business was directly tied their union
members’ needs, and if they thought their delegates’ participation
would make any difference whatsoever on decisions made at the
convention. The fact is, once delegates elected by their locals
arrive at an AFT convention, they find themselves operating within a
one-party state run by the Progressive Caucus, which in turn is run by
the Unity Caucus of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)— the largest
AFT local in the US. UFT delegates have dominated AFT
conventions through slate elections at the local and national level for
over half a century. Every AFT President for the last 62 years emerged
out of UFT leadership, except for four years from 2004-8 when Edward
McElroy served two terms as a “transitional president” following Sandra Feldman’s diagnosis with breast cancer..
The AFT has been controlled for over 50 years by one caucus - a national version of Unity called The Progressive Caucus. Of course our beloved 750 local Unityites are the main instrument of control. They also control the NY State Unity. Lois explains:
The Unbeatable Slate: Progressive Caucus Dominates AFT for More than 50 Years The
issue that shapes union leaders’ decisions to effectively boycott the
convention is the perception of a lack of democracy within AFT. Financial
barriers to sending delegates thousands of miles away for five days of
convention deliberations are significant, and union leaders who express
concerns about the costs of convention attendance shouldn’t be dismissed
as simply lacking solidarity. But leaders of AFT locals,
including mine, would be more open to subsidizing convention delegate
travel if they thought convention business was directly tied their union
members’ needs, and if they thought their delegates’ participation
would make any difference whatsoever on decisions made at the
convention. The fact is, once delegates elected by their locals
arrive at an AFT convention, they find themselves operating within a
one-party state run by the Progressive Caucus, which in turn is run by
the Unity Caucus of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)— the largest
AFT local in the US. UFT delegates have dominated AFT
conventions through slate elections at the local and national level for
over half a century. Every AFT President for the last 62 years emerged
out of UFT leadership, except for four years from 2004-8 when Edward
McElroy served two terms as a “transitional president” following Sandra Feldman’s diagnosis with breast cancer. Today,
the three top officers of AFT and every one of the 43 national Vice
Presidents are all members of the Progressive Caucus. They run as a
single slate that depends upon bloc voting. The leader of the caucus is
the President of the union, who is also at the top of the slate. A
recent google form to join the Progressive Caucus even called its slate
“Randi Weingarten’s slate.” One can’t simply declare one’s
intention to join the caucus as a candidate for elected office, as
candidates for elected office do in the US. You have to be invited. And
most of the people invited are representatives of the largest labor
unions in the federation. Inclusion on the slate provides direct
personal access to the President, who can provide favors in the form of
spending and staff support for causes that officers care about. But
inclusion also requires supporting every candidate on the slate. Failure
to do so will get you kicked off the slate and effectively lock your
union local out of national power. Once most of the leaders of
large unions pledge to turn out their delegates to support the union
President, the election is all-but-over. Support has been traded for
access before the votes have even been cast. Slate voting— which allows a
delegate to simply check one box for an entire slate instead of voting
separately for 46 different officers— tilts the scales even more by
creating a disincentive for even thinking about the merits of individual
officers. Anyone in AFT who dares even exercise their right
to participate in union elections outside the Progressive Caucus has to
position themselves against the entire power structure of the union—
including the President— whether they want to or not. Unless the Caucus
splits, which so far it never has, such challenges (recently by small
groups like By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN) are dead on arrival.
Since so many locals can't afford to send delegates to the AFT conventions, not only 46% of NYC teachers are left out, but the small locals all over the country too. Read the entire article on the substack: https://futureschools.substack.com/p/this-is-not-what-democracy-looks and note the disparity in delegates attending - ie Chicago only 68.Top 20 largest union locals that sent delegates to AFT 2024 Convention. For Immediate Release
July 19, 2026
|
|
AFT Re-elects Officers, Hears from Union and Political Leaders, Passes Suite of Resolutions at 2026 Convention
National Teachers Union, at Highest-Ever Membership, Caps Four-Day Confab that Drew 3,000 Delegates to DC
|
WASHINGTON—The
1.88 million-member AFT wrapped its 89th biennial convention today,
with union delegates voting overwhelmingly to re-elect President Randi
Weingarten, Secretary-Treasurer Fedrick Ingram and Executive Vice
President Evelyn DeJesus to new two-year terms.
In six packed sessions over four days, more than 3,000 delegates debated and passed resolutions
on a range of pressing issues—from reclaiming the promise of public
education, to protecting immigrant communities, to rebuilding public
health, to preparing for the age of artificial intelligence, to tackling
the affordability and student debt crises. Dozens of breakout meetings
and receptions covered rural issues, faith and religion, international
solidarity and more.
AFT President Randi Weingarten said: “Our convention theme was ‘fighting for a better life for all.’
That’s not a mere slogan—it’s the promise and potential to be together,
to work together, to bargain together, to protest together, to vote
together, to act together to bring about change—real, lasting,
life-improving change for every person in America.”
The union heard from a bevy of high-profile guests and speakers,
including Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, U.S.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder, former Georgia state Rep. Stacey Abrams, Democratic nominee
for D.C. mayor Janeese Lewis George, Pennsylvania state Rep. Jen
Mazzocco, former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, IAM Union International
President Brian Bryant, and IAM Texas State Council President and Texas
state Sen. Taylor Rehmet.
Outgoing American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Lee Saunders, the first African American to lead the union, received the AFT’s Bayard Rustin Human Rights Award,
and labor leader Dolores Huerta was honored with the AFT’s Lifetime
Achievement Award for her decades of work with the United Farm Workers.
And after a rousing Saturday address from Association of Flight
Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson, delegates unanimously passed a
motion from the floor pledging support for the campaign to unionize
Delta flight attendants.
At
the onsite Activist Hub, delegates signed more than 1,000 “Free D.C.”
postcards addressed to state governors to demand they recall their
states’ National Guard from their deployment in the District of
Columbia.
Weingarten,
who taught social studies and civics at Clara Barton High School in
Brooklyn, N.Y., was re-elected to a 10th term Saturday night, while
Ingram, a high school band director in Miami, and DeJesus, an early
childhood educator and reading specialist in New York City, were elected
to sixth terms. The union also elected 43 vice presidents from around
the country.
AFT Secretary-Treasurer Fedrick Ingram
said: “There is only one way we all win and that is working together to
push back against the forces that are so eager to tear us apart. That
is why I have made union work my life’s work and why I remain committed
and ready to serve this union as an officer. It is a distinct honor to
work with the best this country has to offer, in order to ensure
everyone has a real shot at success, happiness and security.”
AFT Executive Vice President Evelyn DeJesus
said: “As the onslaught of ICE attacks against Latino communities
continues, today I stand prouder than ever to be the first Latina
officer elected and re-elected six times to serve the 1.88 million
members of this powerful union. We must look out for, show up and
protect one another, because only together can we make a better life for
all. Sigamos luchando por la democracia, la libertad y una vida mejor
para todos.”
“Our
delegates and committees tackled the issues keeping families up at
night, from the affordability crisis, to defending immigrant
communities, to the reassurance that AI won’t take our members’ jobs, to
the protection of democracy as a whole,” Weingarten
added. “To create an America where everyone has the education, economy
and opportunity to build a good life; an America where everyone’s
dignity and rights are respected; an America whose democracy not only
endures but finally lives up to its noble ideals, will take all of
us—standing together.”
Click HERE for more convention highlights. All passed resolutions can be found HERE.
|
I have a few brief items for you today. Celebrate my rare briefness. Monday, July 13, 2026
Council Sets Vote on $10K Perk for ParaprofessionalsPara Pay Raise bill at City Council, Mamdani switcheroo - really, if he wants to talk affordability, para pay should be a prime factor. But there is also the factor of bonus vs pensionable salary and we are in contract negotiation territory with a cast of thousands negotiating committee. Leah Linn infographic on history of para bill: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DawC3M3Ry_g/ One comment: 
 | Nothing like an ad for your caucus: A UFT Leaflet for labor day |
This City Reporter article mentions Fix Para Pay. Some paraprofessionals, though, feel the
payment isn’t enough and doesn’t address longstanding issues that they
say have been ignored by the union. Marie Wausnock is a paraprofessional on Staten Island
who also co-founded Fix Para Pay, a union caucus slate that opposes
Mulgrew. Some paras leave for other city jobs that require less
training and have better pay, she said.
“How do you give respectable pensions and
dignity to paras when you want to give them non-pensionable money?” she
said. “Paras are so underpaid. We get crumbs every time.”
750 Unity Loyalists Junket in Washington for AFT convention: They got 54% but get 100% of delegates - ABC and ARISE should have 46% In last year's UFT election we voted for 750 AFT/NYSUT convention delegates. And I bet a batch of non-delegate Unity staffers added - call it over 800 and maybe 900. Unity received 54% of the vote but in a winner take all system they get 100% of the delegates as 46% of UFT voters are shut out of both the AFT and NYSUT. And of course, all 750 will vote as told on every reso - all dictated by what Randi wants. This perversion of democracy will enforce the alliance between the UFT leadership and the Dem Party corporate center. Note the speaker list below. I see one progressive - the next Mayor of Washington who is a social-democrat. You won't see many SDs at this convention. Watching Hakim Jeffries and Chuck Schumer and the awful Neera Tanden disparage the SD movement is getting to be LOL - how close are they to Trump reactions. They are threatened and rather then lose control of the bailiwick they'd rather see Republicans - and billionaires - win. The rise of SD as a challenger to the Dem Party - see the drama being played out in Maine is also a threat to Unity hegemony. Too bad the SDs in the UFT have had a decade long failure to show any similar organizing chops that SD has had. Ironically, the closest I've seen to an SD organizing model has been ABC and hopefully the Fixed Retiree Benefits group can also show some organizing chops. Both are a work in progress. From AFT PR: Thousands of Educators, Elected Leaders and Advocates to Gather in D.C. for AFT National Convention
Delegates
Will Hear from Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US House Democratic Leader
Hakeem Jeffries, Labor Leader Dolores Huerta, Former US Attorney General
Eric Holder, Former Georgia State Rep. Stacey Abrams, Democratic
Nominee for D.C. Mayor Janeese Lewis George and more to be announced
|
|
WASHINGTON—The
1.8 million-member AFT—representing teachers, school staff, higher
education workers, nurses and healthcare professionals, and public
employees—will host its 89th national convention July 16-19, bringing
together over 3,500 delegates from across the country. Note that almost one third of the 1.8 million are from NY State delegation controlled by Unity Caucus, which at the national level is called the (once in a blue moon) Progressive Caucus. Oh, and let me announce that Randi will win re-election either unopposed or by 95% if there is an opposing candidate. |
My most recent blog exposing the Mulgrew machine has been getting some notice. --- The Blind Spot: How Oligarchs Dominate Our Democracy What exactly has changed all that much in 250 years? I'm a big fan and paid subscriber to Sam Seder's The Majority Report where I get great interviews and commentary and a lot of fun every weekday at noon-2:30. For history buffs, this interview, especially for a history major like me who took courses in the American Revolution, this interview with Jeffrey Winters was fascinating. The theme is that the founding fathers were fundamentally oligarchs who
believe in small d democracy - very small d. That the constitution was
designed to protect their wealth. And in this interview he goes into
detail. They had a problem in their new system which had a level of
democracy never seen before. How to control that democracy so their
wealth would never be threatened.
We are taught about checks and balances as one branch of government checking the other branches. In this interpretation, C&B were designed by the oligarchs leading the revolution to check the rabble who might get too much democracy and take away some of their wealth -- in case they want to tax the rich. So what else is new? https://www.youtube.com/live/3j7Y-w-XhVk?si=GzVwfqgVfXjlakkE&t=1863 An urgent and shocking examination of how the
ultra-rich dominate democracies, hoard political power, and maintain
inequality—and how we might chart another path.
The
wealthy and powerful few have dominated the many throughout most of
human history. This is now more starkly visible than ever—a time when,
with politicians bought and paid for across the political spectrum, the
gulf between oligarchs and average citizens is larger than any gap that
existed during European feudalism or the slave society of Imperial Rome.
One thing is clear: the world is heading into an even deeper state of
inequality, one that oligarchs of past eras could only have dreamed of.
The strange thing is, for the first time in history, this domination is
accomplished through democracy. Yet we aren’t in open revolt against the
system. In fact, we seemingly keep voting to prop it up. Why?
In The Blind Spot,
political scientist Jeffrey Winters delivers a timely, incisive account
of how we reached this era of in-your-face oligarchy. Tracing the
evolution of wealth power through the modern democratic era, he
demonstrates how domination by oligarchs isn’t just a flaw in our
democracy, but a foundational feature—allowing the wealthy to limit the
agenda, control the marketplace of ideas, and rewire the law to defend,
hide, and increase their money and power. Now, in an extraordinary
paradox, we exist in a state of “participatory inequality,” a world in
which the 99.99 percent of us participate openly, freely, and
democratically in our own ongoing exclusion and exploitation.
But The Blind Spot
ultimately sounds a clarion call for change, arming us not only with a
vital lens through which we can understand just how bad our political
reality has become, but also with bold ideas for how we might shift the
balance of power. While powerful oligarchs do not cede power willingly,
this period of shocking inequality is nevertheless an opportunity for
change. The Winters interview on you tube:
More Recent Articles
|
