Statement on Low UFT Elections Turnout

June 14, 2013 — 10 Comments

By Kit Wainer- Teacher & UFT Chapter Leader at Leon M. Goldstein High School

2007 TJC/ICE UFT Presidential Candidate

2013 MORE UFT Executive Board Candidate

The results of the 2013 UFT election revealed a startling fact: Just 18% of eligible active employees (20,728 of 115,050)  decided to vote.  On June 19th the UFT Delegate Assembly will entertain a motion to charge the election committee with the task of analyzing the problem of low voter turnout in the 2013 union elections. While it is easy to focus on the organizational minutiae of whether the election committee is the correct body to consider this question, or whether it is representative enough, it is important to keep an eye on the broader issue of the origins of low voter participation and its significance for the union as a whole. The declining participation is both a product and a symptom of our union’s weakness. More importantly, it poses an existential threat to the future of the UFT.

Low voter turnout is part of a long-term trend of increasing voter apathy over the last several union elections. It is also part of a larger and equally disturbing trend within the UFT as a whole. When I was first elected chapter leader in 1996 several of the oppositional high school chapter leaders would sit together at high school meetings and complain about the low attendance rates at monthly divisional meetings. At that time there were slightly more than 200 high schools but rarely would more than 40 chapter leaders show up at the monthly meetings. Over the past two years the number of high schools has increased to more than 400 and the turnout of chapter leaders at monthly meetings has declined to fewer than 20. At some meetings participation has been in the single digits if we count only those chapter leaders without part-time staff positions.

Although attendance at Delegate Assemblies has been steady over the past 20 years, it has been very low. The UFT’s meeting hall is large enough to seat no more than 30% of the delegates and there is only slight spillover into the secondary meeting room upstairs. Consider that a delegate’s only job is to show up at the monthly meetings. A delegate who is not coming to DAs is, therefore, not performing any aspect of his/her responsibilities. The fact that thousands of delegates have behaved the same way over decades indicates that this isn’t a problem of individual behavior. It is a larger trend. Inactive delegates are replaced by other inactive delegates.

The success of the June 12 rally is a hopeful sign. However, past membership turnout at union rallies has been uneven, at best. In spring 2005 the UFT did manage to pull off several successful protest events as a build-up to what should have been an activist contract fight. However, more recent results have been disappointing. On December 1, 2011, in the wake of the Occupy protests, the UFT participated in a city-wide union protest. Michael Mulgrew advertised the December 1 march as the one we were “building” — as opposed to other Occupy-inspired actions we were only “supporting.” Then-staff member Janella Hinds came to a high school meeting in November to impress upon us the importance of the march. She argued that if we show up with only 1000 members it will be a show of weakness. I marched in the UFT contingent that day along with the 300-400 other UFT members who heeded the President’s rallying cry.

Analyzing the causes of membership apathy requires some educated speculation. We have no polling data to indicate why people don’t vote or don’t show up. We know that we are in a larger historic climate of low levels of activism, at least compared to the decades of labor upsurges of the 1930s and 1940s, or compared to the growth of social movements in the 1950s and 1960s. However, that is only part of the explanation. Our members vote in U.S. elections at a much higher rate than they vote in UFT elections, despite the fact that going to the polls in November requires more effort than filling out and returning a mail ballot. (And despite the fact that, in my view, decisions of President Mulgrew have a greater impact on the daily lives of UFT members than do decisions of President Obama).

The low membership participation is an ironic — and dangerous — consequence of the UFT’s failures to defend the basic rights of our members.  The impact of the 2005 contract was disastrous. Our work day was lengthened. We lost the right to grieve letters in the file or transfer to other schools and the ATR crisis was born. Now we will be evaluated based on standardized test scores. And at 3020-a hearings the burden of proof will now be on us to convince a hearing officer that we should not be fired. The problem is not simply that we have lost ground. It is that the UFT leaders have spun each giveback as a victory and argued that we are better off than we used to be. Members may not analyze the causes of our decline but when bureaucrats tell them that steps backward are really strides forward, when they tell them things that contradict what they see and feel at work every day,  members simply tune the union out. UFT members have become acclimated to bureaucratic double-speak. We hear it from supervisors, from the Department of Education, from politicians. We have learned over the years to mentally change the channel. When our union representatives speak the same bureaucratic language we respond the same way.

Members respond to the union’s failures — and its refusal to admit failure — by tuning the entire union out. They don’t show up at meetings or rallies and they don’t vote. Ironically, this strengthens Unity’s hand as it frees them of the obligation of formulating coherent arguments that can convince independent delegates that they are right. Delegate Assemblies attract mostly Mulgrew’s Unity Caucus members and have become pro-leadership rallies in which the President speaks for most of the 2 hours and there is little room for serious conversation or debate. Nor does the leadership have to win over activist, critically-minded voters in order to prevail in union elections. Ironically, membership inactivity feeds the very forces that lead to more discouragement and more inaction. And an increasingly isolated union leadership is weaker, more prone to make concessions, and more likely to alienate members. The cycle is tragic but not illogical. Members who are disenchanted with the  union’s trajectory have thus far chosen apathy rather than than the project of building an alternative vision. Frustrating as it is, this decision makes sense for members who have no live experience of any other version of unionism. So many members infer from Unity’s failures that unions in general are bankrupt, or at least irrelevant.

The Unity leadership has turned off the membership and that may soon pose a serious crisis for the UFT as a whole. As some MORE members have pointed out, by acquiescing to the new evaluation procedure, Mulgrew has negotiated contractual concessions without anything in return — not even a contract. Invariably, the state and the city will want more in the very near future and the UFT leaders no longer have the ability (assuming they had the desire) to mobilize the membership to defend what rights we still have. Worse still, the 18% turnout among active members in the 2013 UFT election is a signal that the membership’s lack of investment in the UFT has now reached crisis proportions. This opens the possibility of a direct challenge to the very existence of the UFT. In the national climate of declining union membership and state legislatures moving to eliminate collective bargaining in historic union strongholds such as Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, to ignore the possibility of an assault on our collective bargaining rights would be foolish. An attack from a Tea-Party dominated legislature is unlikely in blue New York. However, a decertification drive from “reform” groups such as Educators For Excellence or Children First is a possibility. Can we be certain that the 82% of active members who don’t care who our union president is will vote to continue paying $100 per month in union dues if given the choice not to? By failing to mobilize our members for the kind of fight we should be waging in this political climate the Mulgrew regime is endangering the very union it leads. That is nothing short of grotesque dereliction of duty.

The good news is that our union’s decline is not inevitable. We can turn things around. The Chicago Teachers Union, which launched a successful strike in September 2012, has shown us that an activist, mobilized membership can fight back and win. The corporate reformers are still on the move in Chicago, but the strike checked at least part of their agenda and provided a living example that participating and organizing are worth the effort. We need that kind of change in mentality in New York.

The Unity leadership seems impervious to the lessons of our defeats in New York or the successes in Chicago. But the Movement of Rank and File Educators is committed to a unionism that is based on mobilized members in alliance with a broader social movement to save our schools from destructive reforms. We believe that a revitalized UFT can energize our members and fend off even Bloomberg-style attacks. We urge you to get involved. The future of your union may depend on it.

Advertisements

10 responses to Statement on Low UFT Elections Turnout

  1. 
    Holly Springer June 14, 2013 at 9:28 am

    Eloquently said. I am one of those few voters but I voted for you. The teachers I know that voted for MORE are so cynical (re: political corruption and collusion) that they don’t even believe your caucus actually lost; they think the results are “fixed”, much like Bloomberg’s reelection. Apathy and the Taylor law got us where we are. Btw, I’m an ATR that printed your flyer and left it on the tables in the teachers’ lounges of the schools I was assigned to. You speak for me and many others and I thank you. Keep on keeping on.

    Holly : )

    sent from my iPhone

  2. 

    Please check date for entertaining motion- it says January 19 Should it be june 19???

    Rachel

  3. 
    Cynthia Waite June 14, 2013 at 9:32 am

    You hit it on the nose brother! The members of this poweful union are so bombarded with the everyday degradations placed upon us that apathy unfortunately has taken hold amongst many of us. However, …we as UFT members must begin again to invest our energies in the powerful union we have. I personally cannot imagine what the future of the education communitee would look like in NYC if we don’t.

  4. 

    Your statement is spot on!!! If they say it often enough then others believe it to be the truth…that is the problem with the rhetoric from Mulgrew and company. I have asked my colleagues why they do not speak up more often, especially when they feel aggrieved…the answer is always the same…they are afraid of retaliation or losing their job. My response is “guess what …with the new teacher evaluation you may lose it anyway, therefore you might as well go down fighting”. I voted for the MORE caucus because I believe in the collective voice. I attended the rally in Albany, unfortunately not by the invite of the UFT(guess I missed the memo). I was embarrassed to be a UFT member as our lack of a major presence did not go unnoticed. I will gladly share my experience with the few Mulgrew chosen UFT Albany rally attendees, but this is not the forum for that. Anyway, the recent rally in Albany and NYC may not have received the media coverage we hoped for but that is how grass roots organizing begins….we had a city rally, a state rally why not a national rally. I suggest a million teacher march in Washington. Lets keep shouting till they listen and as “waiting for superman” extolled….we won’t back down!!!

    • 

      These days retaliation for speaking up is a near certainty in the nazified school environments we’ve allowed to proliferate. UFT cutting you loose ( as in “you’re on your own”) in that circumstance is an *absolute* certainty.
      The human heart is such that hope springs eternal. We think that if we’re quiet , there’s a good chance they won’t come after us. At least not right away.
      And we’re right. In the meantime, we dream: we might hit the lottery; Diane Ravitch might be elected President of the USA; genuine unionists might wrest control of the UFT from the poseurs currently in charge and set things right.

      It makes sense to lay low. Sort of.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. Statement on Low UFT Elections Turnout | morecaucusnyc ← NPE News Briefs - June 16, 2013

    […] Click here to read the entire post via Statement on Low UFT Elections Turnout | morecaucusnyc. […]

  2. UFT Series Post #4: Do You Want MORE From Your Union? | The official website of the PJSTA - January 30, 2014

    […] For a more detailed analysis of the election turnout visit Kit Wainer’s piece here. […]

  3. Why is the UFT so undemocratic? | - January 21, 2016

    […] However, the opposition still only won 23 percent of the overall vote, because of dismal turnout (18 percent among working educators) and the dominance of retiree votes (52 percent of the total). Because of the slate system, the […]

  4. 2016 UFT election results: Some Good News, But A Great Deal Of Work Still To Do « Movement of Rank and File Educators - June 1, 2016

    […] membership will vote this coming November than voted this spring. After the 2013 UFT elections I argued that low voter turnout was one of many symptoms of membership disengagement from the UFT as a […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s