This post is a thumbnail sketch of the three UFT caucuses as we look to vote on the different elected officials to run the UFT. Presently, I have not endorsed any caucus or any individual candidate. However, based upon what I have seen and heard I do have my preferences which will be listed as we get closer to the election date.
Unity:
"Unity" has been in power of the UFT since the beginning of the union and even the most optimistic opposition member doesn't expect them to be voted out of office, especially when they receive 90% of the retiree vote. Worse, the retirees make up the majority of voters, a tough hill to climb for the opposition.
"Unity" has become increasingly disconnected from the active members under Michael Mulgrew. His love affair with Chancellor Carmen Farina continues as the classroom teacher is still subject to the "gotcha system", excessive paperwork, and ignores numerous complaints about principals from hell. Under President Michael Mulgrew, it's all about what is best for him and not the members. Remember how he supported that racial arsonist Al Sharpton with union funds against fellow union members? Or how about his backroom deal with the new Mayor Bill de Blasio to give us a vastly inferior contract that's back loaded while screwing the rest of the municipal workforce that also made ATRs a second class citizen? Who can forget how he supported the APPR, refused to support the "opt out" movement, and threatened to punch you in the face if you insulted his beloved Common Core.
In my opinion, the "Unity" caucus has been in power far too long, while there are some very talented people in the caucus and I will happily vote for them in the upcoming election. However, the "Unity" caucus as an organization that is more about loyalty than about talent and any dissent to the leadership will result in their removal from their cushy union job. This is the only UFT caucus that requires a "loyalty oath" to join the caucus.
MORE/New Action:
These are two separate caucuses who have decided to bury their differences and run a joint slate to try to unseat the "Unity" caucus. They have a real chance in catching the high school seats and erode the margin of victory by "Unity" elsewhere. The MORE/New Action coalition has a pro teacher plank with their advocacy of teacher rights and classroom improvements, especially lower class sizes, identifying vindictive principals, and supporting the "opt out" movement. Issues, the UFT leadership has refused to address. Finally, there are many very talented people as part of the coalition who I will gladly vote for.
Unfortunately, missing from their 2016 plank is the ATR issue. Was this a deliberate omission or a mistake? If the caucus wanted to advocate for the ATRs, their plank would have clearly stated it. Furthermore, MORE's obsession with "Social Justice" is displayed in their plank. They believe in restorative justice issues (they don't work), student rights to have cellphones in school (most teachers find them distracting in the classroom) and a more Socialist view of the world then I feel comfortable with.
Solidarity:
The newest UFT caucus and is suffering from the usual growing pains. On the good side, their plank is pro-teacher and trade unionist. None of that "Social Justice" crap that muddles the message that the other two caucuses have. On their website they have already identified vindictive administrators called Administrators In Need Of Improvement. Further, I find their toolbox very useful. Moreover, they have taken the lead in advocating for the ATRs and list the field supervisors and any comments about them on their web site. However, the caucus is dominated by one person and that is a problem. Until this caucus matures and adds more people who are respected by the general membership, it is only as good as that one person in charge of the Solidarity caucus.
Note: I was one of the founding members of the Solidarity caucus but have decided to become unaffiliated to retain my independence.
When I vote it is what's in my best interests as a classroom teacher not the ideology, politics, or issues unrelated to education. I want my vote to count and so should you.
49 comments:
From MORE's platform which does indeed address ATRs
"Revise the ‘Fair Student Funding’ Formula. The DOE must return to the system in which each school’s budget was charged the same fixed amount per teacher. The current system incentivizes principals to hire inexperienced teachers. We must restore the right of an educator to transfer on the basis of seniority or to further integration."
not to mention MORE is the only caucus to raise a resolution demanding ATRs have their own chapter, chapter leader, and delegates. We also refused to vote for the contract because ATRs would have a separate tier of due process
you were consulted on our contract demands and had every opportunity to help us shape our platform, which you took no part in
But never let the facts get in the way of your blog post
Mike:
Can you show me where your 2016 agenda specifically states that ATRs need to be given the same rights as other teachers? I must have missed it? Moreover, if that phase is what you consider ATR protections? Then you fail to understand what we want and that is the right to be appointed to a list of vacancies in our District before schools are allowed to hire from the outside.
That are the facts!.
ATRs will never be forcibly appointed. Farina or any chancellor after will not go for that. Principals will always have the right to hire who they want. Keep rotating and get your money.
Anon 4:37
Principals would have no choice if the Chancellor decides otherwise.
From the MORE platform. "We must restore the right of an educator to transfer on the basis of seniority or to further integration."
That would make the ATR problem moot except for the obscure licenses. There should not be ATRs. If seniority transfers are restored, the problem goes away in June as ATRs can move to available openings across the system. That's a simple way to end the problem. No need to have elaborate plans.
4:37 You are a man of wisdom. All ATRs heed this man's advice especially those of us like him with a few years to go. Just pile up your pension credits keep your tda maxed out think of how good its all gonna be
Chaz is right. MORE should have clearly spelled out the ATR issue in their 2016 platform not dance around wording that can be interpenetrated as meaning different things to different people.
I do not understand why we need ATR's at all. Sorry Chaz as you are one, but you were convicted under 3020-a, weren't you?
To 5:58,
The lifting of the ban on student cellphones is the single worst thing done to education since the introduction of the business model for schools. I did not know MORE was in favor of this. Also, "That would make the ATR problem moot except for the obscure licenses" - I and hundreds of us have such licenses. Not obscure, but Vocational and the Arts. What says MORE on that?
Anon 6:53
First, there should not be any ATRs, they should be appointed in vacancies before Randi and her "Unity" pals screwed us. Second, I was not found guilty of the charges the DOE accused me of. Its in my blog.
Ok Bronx ATR, You have an obscure license. How do you want to be placed? Should the DOE be forced to create jobs for your subject? How do you want MORE and NAC to handle this? Getting a transfer based on seniority in license to schools ATR's themselves choose is the simplest, fairest way to end the problem.
Where does it say MORE supports students using cell phones in the classroom? I have read the platform several times and don't see it. That line in this post is pure fiction. The restorative justice stuff in the MORE platform says about the coordinators, "These coordinators and teams should work with safety committees and school leadership teams to come up with school-based safety programs that fit each school."
School based safety plans that are decided on by SLTs (teachers are elected to SLTs) and Safety Committees working together. Isn't this better than the current top-down system we have?
James
If you support restorative justice and social justice it means supporting the right of students in having cell phones as a social justice right for the students.
Convince me and other teachers that the MORE?New Action plank does not support cellphones in the classroom? Show me where it states that?
I, as an ATR, do not want to be placed in a shithole permanantly. And since most schools are shitholes, I prefer to rotate. Now, if I had an option of any school in any borough, that's a different story.
Everybody:
Here is the problem. How many school administrators punish students for using their cellphones in school? Two? One? None? Chaz has a point and allowing students to carry their cellphones and use it without penalty is a major problem for teachers, especially in the classroom.
My understanding of restorative justice is giving students options for bad behavior and allowing them to carry and use cellphones in school without real penalty is adding increased stress on our profession.
While I don't know if MORE advocates cellphones in the classroom it appears they're platform doesn't prohibit it either. This ambiguity is the problem. the various caucuses must state whether they support student cellphones in the schools and what penalties these students who violate the school rules would be subject to, in consultation with the school administration..
7:33,
I would like to see the return of vocational subjects and schools. There should be a concerted action from our union and whatever entity that is in charge of the Union in that direction. (Many students are simply not doing well academically and could have an opportunity to to learn a trade. Instead they are being pushed into college with a third grade reading level.) I don't expect anything from MORE/New Action, I was simply asking for a clarification. This isn't about creating jobs for ATRs with "obscure" licenses, this is about what's best for NYC students. I'll be voting for Solidarity. Your response has at least clarified that for many of us.
First of all Chaz this is the MORE platform and not the New Action platform or the joint slate platform that we are running on. For the joint program, go to the MORE-NAC agreement. Ask NAC about its priorities. Putting them in a piece with MORE's platform isn't really fair to NAC.
The joint program lists the eight or so areas where we agree and students having cellphones in the classroom is not one of them. Nobody proposed it and it hasn't even been discussed. I'm on the joint MORE-NAC Committee for the election so I think I would know if this came up.
I personally was not that comfortable with the restorative justice part of the MORE platform as I don't think it is right for every school since it can be misused to hammer teachers for student misbehavior. I was the one who asked that the extra language on SLTS and Safety Committees be added to the MORE platform as a democratic safeguard should we get into office and actually have to negotiate on this. The SLT and Safety Committee amendment was approved unanimously.
I think it is quite a stretch to say social justice means the right for students to use cell phones in class. Please show me that in MORE's literature. By the way, Unity is very big on social justice and Mulgrew has said we are a social justice union so this should be a non issue.
My personal opinion is the whole social justice thing is kind of like the less filling-tastes great argument. Some use it to preach a political ideology while others use it as a way to say we have to work with the communities we serve and still others say teacher working conditions like lower class sizes are all social justice issues. Whatever definition you use means very little or nothing to teachers in schools. Parsing it or reading things that aren't there like a cellphone use right in the classroom for students only helps Unity.
I'm an unapologetic trade unionist as is my wife. Our main priorities are protecting and restoring the rights of the classroom teacher and strengthening the UFT. We also care about the kids and aren't sorry for that.
A union can only be strong if its rank and file are truly active. I stand 100% with MORE-New Action on that as should you and every UFT member.
I am hesitant to vote for MORE because of their devotion to socialism gobbledygook. NAC has some of that aspect but it doesn't appear to be a priority. However when you partner with another you compromise your priorities for UNITY. I am afraid that SOLIDARITY doesn't have the grassroots that MORE/NEW ACTION does and it'll be a wasted vote.I really want to vote for them/him because they're/ he's not a socialist and appears to be more for the classroom teacher than a political movement/ Bernie Sanders. Great post Chaz and great responses to all. Looking forward to your next post on this matter and the ensuing responses.
Someone has to show me the socialism in the MORE platform. Maybe I missed something. And to try to turn a non-existent cell phone issue in the MORE platform, given all the issues facing teachers and the union, is like saying the major international problem we have in this world is water rights in Bolivia.
James and Camille Eterno have a major say in MORE.
I don't think they are socialists. Neither am I or many others in MORE.
Saying MORE does not support ATRS is creating a red herring.
MORE people in their schools - where it counts - support ATRS and some have even gotten some of them permanent jobs.
They just don't brag about what they do every day. How easy it is to do what the UFT/Unity does - say one thing and do another.
MORE had an open platform discussion open to all. An ATR is on the MORE steering committee. All Chaz had to do was write something and submit it.
Mike laid out what MORE has done on the ATR issue.
And bloggers associated with MORE Like ICE, Ed Notes and NYC Educator have been the longest running supporters of ATRs for a decade - why not go through the archives and read what we have written. to act like MORE is somehow separate from the people who are part of it is a bogeyman.
Chaz! I am shocked you didn't mention one of the biggest concerns I have with More/Na the fact that their presidential candidate is a special education teacher and they offer no support on the subject!
Great post Chaz. You were at our initial meetings and involved in our early communications. We respect your decision to remain independent.
I can see how from the outside it appears to be a one person show, but I assure you, and I'm very proud to say, it's a team effort. After being ignored by the Social Justice caucus, and NAC not knowing what they were doing for election, we had a proposal and vote according to our bylaws. 54 people at the time voted to run in the election and for the first three candidates.
Since then our group is officially at 116 and decisions are made according to our bylaws. Our support numbers much larger of course.
We exist because the other caucuses fall very short of addressing the issues of the membership. For example the last time MORE had an initiative against an administrator was in 2013. Of course that was because the principal made racist remarks.
Besides raising a resolution for ATRs, MORE has done little for ATR issues. To contrast, 5 of the 6 ATR Alliance reps are Solidarity members. When we sent emails to MORE to help advertise for ATR meetings, they were ignored. Same for discontinued teachers and same for rallies outside abusive schools. They took, and still take, the ostrich approach.
Remember, not only was I a member of MORE, but sat on steering for two terms. What a nightmare. The infighting was and I hear still is ridiculous.
Solidarity is a true caucus. Meaning "a group of people with shared concerns within a political party or larger organization." MORE is a melting pot of very left, slightly left, not left at all, but just not Unity. When MORE members and I had enough in August September of 2014, we created Solidarity. A few got cold feet and still remain in MORE to this day.
They want democracy, but told New Action that only MORE can choose the presidential candidate. Now that's democracy.
Some in MORE have a life goal of "one united caucus." One group is also absent of democracy.
When New Action first published the New Action/MORE coalition, the first thing they mentioned was that NAC was the original social justice caucus. I'm not making this up, but the first initiative mentioned by NAC was their fight against apartheid. Apartheid? That's how you're going to reach the twenty five year old members?
Solidarity wrote a response to this new coalition, but we never published it. We realized..."no one cared."
Yes it's true.. we asked Jia Lee to run as our VP of Elementary and James Eterno if he would take his knowledge and experience as UFT Secretary. No go. Now these caucuses are running not to win. They even stated it on their page. What?
"Vote for us, but we aren't going to win."
Solidarity is in it to win it and we're activating members who never voted before. Our information is here www.UFT2016.com and if anyone is interested in running with us they can fill this out. www.uftsolidarity.org/runwithus
In the meantime, we continue to support members. That's what a union is supposed to do.
You see MORE people???
That "social justice" crap is turning people off. Play it down or dump it
You have a great platform but any connection to "socialism" and the pea-sized brain teachers will vote Unity - even to their detriment
New York's Brightest - LOL
Open Market still doesnt work...
My big concern is how the presidential candidate for a caucus like MORE is a special education teacher and they do not offer any help or assistance on that matter no lt have it on their platform!
While Solidarity is a new caucus, we are doing whatever it takes to be in as many places as possible. Since we are a small group, we have to cover ground in different ways. Thanks to social media, we are able to make up some of the difference in our numbers. We are determined to find ways to show UFT members that the current leadership is disconnected from the needs of its members.
Jonathan:
The MORE plank is the main plank of your coalition not New Action. While both groups claim to support ATRs, I would like to see it in the coalition plank not dance around the issue.
Norm:
Then why dance around the ATR issue as the MORE plank does? Furthermore, "social justice" is a top issue for all Socialist parties. It's teacher rights not restorative justice or student rights that only muddle MORE's message.
Chaz,
you responded to my comment without publishing it. And you are wrong about "the main plank of your coalition."
This is the language MORE and New Action agreed to:
5. Joint program with broad topics, and some specific proposals. Each group will use the joint program, yet be able to add as it sees fit, within agreed upon parameters. The following list of broad topics is in development:
Abusive Administrators, Teacher Evaluation, ATRs, Tenure/Discontinuances/Probationers, Opt Out/High Stakes Testing, Union Democracy, Mobilization for the next contract.
Jonathan
Are these caucuses registered within the UFT? Did you need petitions of teachers to get them started? And do you have voting power within the UFT?
It is a joke.
If you're tired of the same old same old debate getting us nowhere join #uftsolidarity2016 and make your mark! Lots of room and seats available for all members, young, mid career, experienced and newbie. Not to mention activist retired members! Don't be afraid to take that big step towards freedom from rhetoric and nitpicking! Go www.solidarity.org and read our extensive platform and meet our candidates!
Solidarity has much more potential to make bring the UFT back to protecting its members. MORE beats around the bush and never makes a dent and new action is a bit old school and doesn't have the grit to take down the unity snakes. Solidarity will be ruthless and that is what is needed.
"They want democracy, but told New Action that only MORE can choose the presidential candidate. Now that's democracy. "
New Action proposed to MORE that the presidential candidate come from MORE subject to approval by New Action. New Action was invited to all meetings to discuss that choice.
Just one more lie from the pro-apartheid presidential candidate who mocks New Action for proudly making a stand on that issue. You sure ain't no Nelson Mandela.
NO CAUCUS CAN BE ALL THING TO EVERYONE. Chaz is just pointing out what he doesn't like and people of that caucus should not be so sensitive.
I don't like many issues but I realize that I will eventually vote for the people who are closest to my philosophy.
The caucuses are acknowledged by the UFT leadership. You don't need a petition, but rather notify the UFT leadership that you have a group of like minded members and are forming a caucus. At first it appeared we were ignored and then we were responded too and invited to joint election meetings.
It's not necessary to make stuff up. Norm is correct. It was our (New Action's) proposal.
We suggested that the slate be split evenly, but that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, subject to approval by New Action's executive board, which is exactly what happened.
In fact, the first meeting didn't feel very much like a negotiation at all. We came to quick agreement on all major issues, and spent the remaining time chatting and discussing strategy, details, etc.
Here's the actual language on the composition of the slate:
3. Allocation of Slots
• The allocation of slots, in general should reflect both the relative strength of the caucuses, and the history and significance of the caucuses
• The number of delegate slots is sufficient that both groups may supply as many delegate candidates as they wish; we are unlikely to run out of space.
• The number of officer, divisional and at-large slots should be divided evenly, except where there is an odd number (eg, 7 high school slots) the extra seat will be filled by MORE.
• The presidential candidate will come from MORE’s ranks, and be agreed to by both groups.
• In the case of other officer candidates, and the divisional executive board candidates, the groups will review each other’s choices and agree to the specific candidates. If there are specific objections, the groups will discuss. In all other cases the individual group may choose its candidates without consulting the other group.
Jonathan
The ATR issue is structural. It was not caused by MORE and it will not be resolved by a MORE platform plank. Cuomo and his ilk would like a revolving door of teacher novices and the concomitant reduced pension liabilities. Veteran teachers are being targeted and harassed in cities all over the country. It is unrealistic to think that seniority preferences and transfers will be restored to New York City teachers by a UFT election.
Abigail Shure
Jonathan:
According to you the social justice plank was joint, If true, than NAC is no better protecting teacher rights than MORE since the social justice plank muddles the message.
Most teachers want a teacher-centered union not playing politics or advocating an ideology that is divisive and not inclusive and social justice does just that!
Did Chaz hit a nerve? Even if he is not totally correct the social justice issue is a red herring for the MORE/NA coalition. You would think MORE's poor showing in the last election would have taught them about using the social justice issue?
MORE/NA gave Solidarity the issue they can hammer the coalition with.
Brooklyn Ed Council Votes to Rezone, Integrate PS 307 and PS 8
Here lies your live Patch dispatch from Tuesday night's madly anticipated CEC13 vote on rezoning — and desegregating — two Brooklyn schools.
http://patch.com/new-york/williamsburg/s/fj63s/live-blog-ps-307-and-ps-8-rezoning-vote?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=schools&utm_campaign=alert
Should teachers be interested and involved in issues like this?
I'm an ATR and would like to know which caucus, if any, plans to address the Do Not Hire coding in the system that prevents principals from hiring ATRs that they feel were railroaded but completely capable of doing their jobs. the principals are supposed to be in charge of hiring - except when that hiring is of an ATR. Principals shouldn't have to fight with legal to hire a teacher they want. Legal also should not be able to tell that principal they can't hire the ATR because they're a "problem". I'm tired of spinning my wheels and being told by field assassins that I must be a horrible teacher since I can't get a permanent position when nothing could be further from the truth. ATRs are targeted and problem coded. I could have had several positions, one immediately after I was placed in the ATR pool two years ago, and I was told by the principal that he couldn't hire me because I had charges. It didn't matter that the most of the charges had been dismissed or that I had fulfilled the requirements of the decision. I was and still am being punished for allegedly being incompetent, even though I have had my hearing and was not terminated. I am now on a leave, in essence, to protect my license because if I get another field supervisor operating under the instruction to give me a U - regardless of my ability - I will be brought up on incompetency charges again and certainly terminated because the union I pay dues to does not fight for its members. Even felons get a chance at rehabilitation and given a second chance, but not in the DOE/UFT! You don't even have to do anything wrong... administrators can make up things because even when they are caught lying they get away with it! At this point I'm ready to walk away from almost 20 years of service (3 as a school aide) because I refuse to be the punching bag for incompetent and vengeful administrators who get off on abusing their workers. I'm willing to walk away from "retro" and the only thing I have ever wanted to do in the world - the only thing I have experience doing because this system is just too corrupt and I don't hear anyone talking about this injustice to ATRs. At least Solidarity is reaching out to ATRs. I have been jerked around in this system for almost 9 years and I never even heard of MORE or NA. It is said that they've been fighting for ATRs for over a decade. maybe that's true but it hasn't worked. things have gotten worse... much much worse. I hope that Unity is ousted because that is the only way I will return to teaching for the DOE. Such a shame... I'm a graduate of LaGuardia - a specialized HS - and a product of the city in which I want to teach, but the same institution that told me I could be anything and do anything with my life is now actively suppressing my ability to teach in NYC public schools. How can I stand in front of students who think education is their way out of poverty knowing the obstacles that are set up for them before they ever even graduate?I can't do it. I can't lie to them. I never thought I would walk away from teaching,but I am and it is heartbreaking because it's all I ever wanted to do and I am very good at it.
Chaz,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. New Action and MORE have agreed to:
5. Joint program with broad topics, and some specific proposals. Each group will use the joint program, yet be able to add as it sees fit, within agreed upon parameters. The following list of broad topics is in development:
Abusive Administrators, Teacher Evaluation, ATRs, Tenure/Discontinuances/Probationers, Opt Out/High Stakes Testing, Union Democracy, Mobilization for the next contract.
Beyond that, each caucus has the right to add what they see fit.
You have read a document MORE published, and ascribed, incorrectly, to New Action, several times now. Please stop.
New Action has not published an election document this year. The election period does not officially open for at least a month.
But you can read any or all of our literature, including past campaigns, to get a sense of where we stand. We have a long history.
Jonathan
Jonathan::
My understanding is that if MORE/NAC does win, MORE will have the controlling interest and even if New Action does not have "social Justice" as part of their agenda, MORE does and do you really think MORE will abandon the social justice plank? Dream on if you really believe that.
Look, we cannot agree on this issue. You have your view and I have mine and any group that allows social justice issues to cloud their view is a problem with me and many others.
If you have little to no faith in New MORE please join UFT Solidarity Caucus!!! We are in it to win it! We don't charge dues and we accept all UFT members even if you've joined other caucuses! So come on board! Fighting for ATRs as ATR Alliance since 2014 and for all abused and harassed educators as Don't Tread On Educators; created ANOI list of hazardous supervisors! We walk the talk!!! UFTSolidarity2016!
!!!
Chaz,
disagreeing on an issue is one thing - disagreeing on facts is something else.
New Action will have three Exec Board seats. MORE will have four. It takes five signatures to introduce a resolution. The comment about "controlling interest" makes no sense.
New Action has a history. We supported divestment from Apartheid South Africa. We opposed Stop and Frisk. We press the union to take up the fight against abusive administrators. We support teachers in rotation. We oppose teacher evaluation based on tests. You know much of the rest.
But judge us on what we stand for and what we have done. Judge the joint slate on what it stands on - a common program, yet to be published, based on these seven broad topics - Abusive Administrators, Teacher Evaluation, ATRs, Tenure/Discontinuances/Probationers, Opt Out/High Stakes Testing, Union Democracy, Mobilization for the next contract. To imply more, to impute to us positions that we have not taken, to ignore the terms of the joint slate - that is letting your take on some of MORE's positions cloud your ability to reason.
Jonathan
If I remember correctly, didn't New Action support Al Sharpton's march against the police? A top "social justice" issue? However, I will wait to see what the MORE/NAC coalition actually states when it is published.
I'm the Solidarity representative on the UFT Election Committee. Calling Solidarity "dominated by one person" is saying MORE is dominated by three bloggers. If you rejoined Solidarity, would that make us dominated by two people? Putting aside celebrity appeal for a moment, there are members of our caucus with decades of experience, members with their own insane fights they have waged against the DOE. We have democratic bylaws and nobody gets steamrolled by the Presidential candidate, please get that straight. Thanks for mentioning us in the roll call, since the other democratically run caucus isn't democratic enough to acknowledge that other unions besides them are allowed to exist.
The charges vs MORE in this blog post and in the comments have no basis in fact. Not based on platform or official statements on the MORE site.
Anon 3:10
Are you telling me that MORE has no plank for "SOCIAL JUSTICE"? How about RESTORATIVE JUSTICE"?
I think you need to read the MORE 2016, its obvious you must have missed it.
Chaz, MORE is not going to get it. They just don't get that their messages do not resonate with the majority of the active and retired members.
They don't care. All they want is to use the election to build their numbers. Not to win, not to bring great change we need, but to just merely grow and get numbers. For who? For what?
I spent countless futile hours on phone conferences, email threads, MORE steering committee meetings and they just don't want to hear it.
I just came home from a video shoot for a Solidarity campaign video. We had three teachers from across the spectrum come speak and none of what said is on MORE's platform. When you see it Chaz, you'll say "Yes..That's the problem. That's what our union needs to fix. Solidarity gets it and is the only group on the ballot that is even talking the talk."
I can't tell you how smooth it is over at Solidarity. No infighting and three day email threads, covered in red tape, not aligned to member issues. There were over 100 emails back and forth about MORE and Sharpton's March for Justice in 2014. Over 100. That's more than there was about ATRs, workplace bullying and attacks on probationary teachers combined.
A request is being made for a debate. We hope New Action/MORE agree to it.
Post a Comment