Some people work for the union. Some people serve the union. And then there are those rare people who become part of its heartbeat. For District 75, Ilyana Frias was one of those people.

I met Ilyana Frias in Princeton, New Jersey.

We were both chapter leaders then, attending chapter leader training and trying to absorb all the information being bestowed upon us over those weekends. I remember those trainings, but what I remember even more vividly are the train rides home on New Jersey Transit.

That was where the real debrief happened.

We would recap what we had learned, talk about our chapters, question things, laugh, debate and probably solve a few union problems before the train ever made it back to New York.

It was during those rides that I first realized just how brilliant Ilyana was as a unionist.

She understood people. She understood power. She understood what it meant to represent someone who was counting on you to be their voice when they felt like they didn’t have one.

And Lord knows, she understood how to have a good time.

Ilyana was my coworker. She was my friend. She became my sister.

And losing her after her courageous battle with cancer leaves a space in our union family that simply cannot be filled.

We Grew Up in This Union Together

There was a group of us just getting started ans union leaders around that time: Michael Santos, Ilyana Frias, Roderick Palton, Khiera Kersey Heggs and me.

We got to know one another pretty well.

Looking around years later, it is remarkable to see how everyone grew and matured into different roles within education. We didn’t know exactly where the journey would take us back then.

But I knew Ilyana was going somewhere.

She started her career as a paraprofessional, and she remained a paraprofessional throughout her career.

And I want to emphasize that because Ilyana taught me something important.

There is sometimes an assumption that paraprofessionals are paras because they lack the qualifications to become teachers. Ilyana completely shattered that assumption for me.

She had the ability. She had the intelligence. She had the knowledge. But she had her children early in life, and remaining a paraprofessional made sense for her family and her circumstances.

She also showed me something our school system should never forget:

Paraprofessionals are the backbone of our classrooms.

Ilyana didn’t need another title to validate her intelligence or her importance.

She became a chapter leader while working as a para, which is how our paths crossed. Eventually, I watched her and Michael Santos move into advocate roles, and I watched the investment this union made in developing their leadership come back one hundredfold.

Ilyana ultimately served as a District 75 advocate for Brooklyn.

And she was damn good at it.

Straight, No Chaser

When I began my role with the UFT, I was excited that I would have the opportunity to work alongside Ilyana in Brooklyn.

We were tough on each other.

That’s what happens when two people care deeply about the work and aren’t afraid to tell each other the truth.

I learned tremendously from her because Ilyana didn’t sugarcoat things. She gave it to you straight, no chaser.

And if Ilyana represented you, you knew exactly what you were getting.

An advocate.

Not someone who was going to sit quietly while a principal ran over a member. Not someone who accepted “no” simply because somebody in authority said it. Not someone who forgot whose side she was supposed to be on when things became uncomfortable.

She was there for the member.

Period.

I remember visiting one District 75 school where we were encouraging the staff to understand the power of their collective voice and to use it to push back when necessary.

Eventually, the principal requested that we attend a school community meeting.

During that meeting, the principal decided to take a shot at me. She suggested that I didn’t understand the school’s climate or the needs of its students and then made a remark about having “suits” coming into the building trying to disrupt their flow.

She didn’t get very far.

Before she could even finish, Ilyana stepped in.

And let’s just say that by the time Ilyana finished responding, that principal was eating a healthy serving of humble pie in front of her staff.

The backpedaling began almost immediately and continued when we met privately afterward.

That principal learned two important lessons that day.

First, if you planned on coming for Ilyana or one of her colleagues, you had better come prepared.

Second, Ilyana Frias was ride-or-die for this union and the members she represented.

That wasn’t a slogan for her.

That was how she lived.

Her Advocacy Didn’t Stop at the Schoolhouse Door

Ilyana’s sense of justice extended far beyond District 75.

She loved Brooklyn. She loved the communities that raised her. And she was deeply concerned about what gentrification was doing to neighborhoods and families that had built those communities long before they became desirable to newcomers and developers.

She served with community organizations and stayed actively involved in the issues affecting the neighborhoods she loved.

I learned firsthand that this was another subject on which Ilyana did not play.

We were once waiting for food in a restaurant, talking about how dramatically the neighborhood had changed and how parts of it no longer seemed designed to serve the community that had historically lived there.

A woman nearby decided to jump into our conversation and challenge what we were saying. She talked about how much she loved the neighborhood as it was.

Well…

She picked the wrong conversation.

Ilyana proceeded to give that woman an education on community, displacement and gentrification right there in the restaurant lobby.

That was Ilyana.

There was no switch she flipped to become an advocate when she arrived at work.

She was an advocate.

Dominican. Brooklyn. Union. Family.

Ilyana knew exactly who she was.

Not only did she represent the Dominican Republic hardcore, but she was proud to be an Afro Latina claiming her black ancestry.

She was funny as hell.

She was blunt when business needed to be handled.

She was hardheaded.

She was the life of the party.

And she was beautiful—not simply physically, although she certainly was—but spiritually.

Ilyana was also a fierce ally of the LGBT community. With one of her sister’s children being a part of the community, she understood that advocacy wasn’t abstract. These were people she loved, and when Ilyana loved you, she defended you.

Family meant everything to her

Her daughters, Imani and Thalia, her son, her grandchildren, her sisters, including her sister Pat, and the entire family were at the center of her world.

And Ilyana’s definition of family wasn’t limited to blood.

Michael Santos was her union brother, but blood couldn’t have made the two of them much closer.

When someone in her family struggled, Ilyana didn’t stand on the sidelines. She rallied everybody. When one family member faced mental-health struggles, she helped mobilize the family around that person with love and support.

That’s what she did.

She showed up.

For family.

For friends.

For members.

For community.

For us.

She Kept Showing Up

And perhaps that is what makes the final chapter of Ilyana’s life so difficult for me to comprehend.

Ilyana battled cancer more than once.

And more than once, she beat it.

She was determined that this disease was not going to define her life.

Even as her illness became more serious, she continued working. She continued representing members. She continued carrying responsibilities that would have overwhelmed people who weren’t fighting for their lives at the same time.

I have never witnessed someone work as hard while terminally ill as Ilyana did.

She worked virtually until her deathbed.

There is something inspiring about that level of dedication. But there is also something about it that should challenge all of us who remain.

Because Ilyana gave this union everything she had.

Her knowledge.

Her voice.

Her time.

Her fight.

And, even when her body was demanding that she focus on herself, she was still thinking about somebody else’s problem that needed to be solved.

She would work and overwork herself for the satisfaction of knowing that a member had been helped.

The UFT is indebted to Ilyana Frias.

She left this union better than she found it.

The Leader She Already Was

Ilyana aspired to become a District Representative, and at one point put herself forward for the role.

But whether or not the title ever followed, the work already had.

In Brooklyn, the lines between where her responsibilities ended and where district leadership began could sometimes be difficult to see. Chapter leaders called on her for guidance. She helped train them, supported them through difficult situations and made sure they understood not only what the union could do, but how to do the work themselves.

Members called her when they needed representation, when something did not seem right, or simply when they did not know where else to turn. Ilyana had a way of making their problem her problem until it was resolved.

And she did not reserve that advocacy for people who agreed with her.

Ilyana was a longtime Unity member and a fierce champion of the union, but when a member needed representation, that member was her member, regardless of their caucus affiliation. She would defend you when you were right, tell you when you were wrong, and sometimes do both in the same conversation. Whatever political disagreements existed within the union, they never determined how fiercely she would represent you. Her loyalty to the union never required her to stop holding it—or any of us—accountable.

That was Ilyana.

She built relationships across titles, caucuses and across the district. She challenged administrators when necessary, advised colleagues who sought her counsel and stepped in wherever the work required her. She was rarely concerned with whether something technically belonged to her.

She was concerned with whether somebody needed help.

There are titles that make someone a leader.

And then there are people whose work makes the title seem like a formality.

Ilyana was the latter.

The members who trusted her knew it.
The chapter leaders who relied on her knew it.
The administrators who encountered her knew it.
And those of us who worked alongside her certainly knew it.

Ilyana spent years showing us who she was as a leader.

District 75 is better because she was there.

What I Wish I Had Told Her More

There is something I wish I could tell Ilyana now.

I watched you.

Maybe I didn’t always say it, but from afar, I watched and admired the way you maneuvered through life, work and happiness.

I admired your bravery.

I admired your fight.

I admired your ability to carry so much and somehow keep going.

I wish I could have been there every step of the way as you fought this final battle. But that wasn’t you. You didn’t want to burden people with what you were going through.

Even when you needed people, you were still worried about everybody else.

So let me say what I need you to know now.

I love you, Ilyana.

There will never be another you.

Nobody can fill your shoes, and perhaps we shouldn’t try.

Instead, those of us who had the privilege of knowing you should carry pieces of what you taught us into the work that remains.

We should advocate a little harder.

Speak a little more directly.

Stand a little firmer when somebody tries to intimidate one of our members.

Make room for the paraprofessional whose leadership somebody else might overlook.

Protect our communities.

Defend people who need an ally.

Laugh loudly.

Love our families fiercely.

And every now and then, give somebody the truth straight, no chaser.

And Ilyana, don’t worry about your babies.

Don’t worry about your children.

Don’t worry about those grandchildren.

The people who love you know how fiercely you loved them. We will make sure they continue to be surrounded and showered with the love you wrapped around them throughout your life.

That’s part of our responsibility now.

ILYANA FRIAS

When I think of Ilyana, four words immediately come to mind:

Dedication. Superwoman. Role model. Advocate.

But one word could never contain her.

So perhaps her name itself can remind us of what she gave us:

I — Irreplaceable
Because there simply will never be another Ilyana.

L — Loyal
To her family, her friends, her community, her members and her union.

Y — Youthful
In spirit, humor and her ability to bring life into a room.

A — Advocate
Not merely something she did. It was who she was.

N — Never-yielding
Because “no” was rarely the end of the conversation when Ilyana knew something wasn’t right.

A — Authentic
Straight, no chaser. What you saw was what you got.

F — Fearless
Whether facing an administrator, confronting injustice or battling cancer, fear never got the final word.

R — Resilient
She fought, recovered, returned and kept showing up.

I — Inspiring
To paraprofessionals, chapter leaders, advocates, colleagues, friends and everyone who watched her work.

A — Audacious
Bold enough to challenge authority, expectations and sometimes anybody unfortunate enough to interrupt the wrong conversation in a Brooklyn restaurant.

S — Superwoman
Not because she never struggled, but because somehow, through struggles most of us could barely imagine, she kept finding the strength to fight for somebody else.

Ilyana Frias was a paraprofessional.

A chapter leader.

A District 75 advocate.

A Dominican woman fiercely proud of where she came from.

A Brooklyn community advocate.

A unionist.

A mother and grandmother.

A sister.

A friend.

My sister.

She fought for her members until she no longer could.

And now it falls to those of us who remain to make sure the work—and the love—continue.

Rest well, Ilyana.

You’ve fought enough.

We’ve got it from here.

The news has stunned me to the core. To lose a unionist as brilliant, vibrant, and deeply dedicated as Jackie Bennett leaves a void at the center of the United Federation of Teachers that will not be easily filled.

In a political climate where it is easy to get lost in abstract data and bureaucratic grandstanding, Jackie was our anchor. She was a true veteran who spent 18 years in the trenches as a high school English teacher before bringing her frontline expertise to union headquarters in 2006. Unity Caucus and the entire UFT membership were incredibly fortunate to have her.

When the city’s Department of Education attempted to judge our educators using detached, abstract metrics, Jackie stood as a shield for the rank-and-file, delivering a line that should be rallied behind for decades to come:

“The reality on the ground is often much different.”

Let’s set the record straight: Jackie didn’t just talk about “the reality on the ground”—she hardcoded it into the very structures of our union.

Threefold Reflection: “The Reality on the Ground”

1. The Moment of the Quote: Jackie uttered these words during a critical, high-stakes clash with the Department of Education regarding teacher privacy and deeply flawed evaluation metrics. The city wanted to rely on abstract, disconnected data models to judge the performance of educators. Jackie used this precise phrase to ground the conversation, reminding bureaucratic policymakers that numbers on a spreadsheet can never capture or replace the lived, complex experience of an educator standing in front of students.

2. How the Realities on the Ground Have Changed: Because Jackie stepped in and impacted that work, the daily reality for New York City educators shifted fundamentally. We are still reaping the benefits she instilled in the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) process. By aggressively lobbying against a heavy reliance on standardized testing data and infusing real-world classroom mechanics into complex formulas, she ensured fairer, more protective evaluations. Similarly, through the PROSE program, she changed the reality on the ground by giving individual school communities contractual waivers to bypass rigid regulations and claim local control over their schedules, hiring, and structures.

3. Unity Caucus Engrained in Today’s Realities: Today, as our union navigates a highly volatile city educational and organizational climate, Unity Caucus remains deeply engrained in these frontline realities. The narrative frequently pushed by dissident union factions is that our governance is detached from the everyday classroom. But let’s correct the record: true leadership is not about shouting from the sidelines or generating public oratory; it is about the behind-the-scenes contract strategy and operational mastery that solves real crises. From designing the safety protocols and remote learning frameworks that protected thousands during the COVID-19 pandemic—earning Jackie the coveted David Wittes Award—to managing the unique public model of the UFT Charter School while strictly protecting labor rights, Unity continuously anchors policy in what actually works for the workers on the front lines.

Echoes of Change: The Work Ahead

As I look at the work left to do in today’s union environment, I am reminded that to lead effectively, we must ensure our execution matches our intent. Dissident factions and commentators frequently resurrect outdated arguments or leverage broader systemic frustrations against the administration. But as a union, we cannot afford to fall back on empty rhetoric.

Jackie Bennett showed us how to bridge the gap between policy and practice. She left us the structural blueprint, but it is up to us to carry the torch forward. As UFT White Hat Whispers, my commitment remains to transparency, accountability, and the absolute truth of our labor reality. We have monumental contract battles, healthcare cross-currents, and structural changes ahead of us. We will honor Jackie’s legacy by rolling up our sleeves, stepping back onto the pavement, and ensuring that no matter how complex the administrative machinery becomes, the voice of the working educator remains the ultimate authority.

We extend our deepest condolences to her loved ones. Rest in power, Jackie. Your footprint protects us every single day.

Leave a comment

History isn’t just a collection of dates; for those of us in the trenches of New York City public education, it’s a blueprint. As we look toward the second week of April, five distinct milestones converge to tell a story of where we’ve been, where we failed, and the work that still demands our “White Hat” resolve.

When we look at the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, the Mechanics’ Institution (1824), the birth of Booker T. Washington (1856), the legacy of the American Federation of Teachers, and the tragic bravery of Ryan White (1990), we see the jagged teeth of progress.

The Original Sin: A Bill Without a Soul

On April 9, 1866, Congress overrode a veto to pass the first federal law defining citizenship. It was supposed to be the “Great Equalizer,” but as a unionist, I see it as the first “unfunded mandate.” The 1866 Act provided legal status but ignored the social and educational infrastructure required to exercise it.

It gave a man the right to a contract but no school to learn how to read it. We see this same “Original Sin” mirrored in our districts today: lawmakers pass sweeping mandates for “inclusion” or “standards” without providing the actual funding, staffing, or desks to make them a reality.

The Evolution of Equity: From 1866 to 1964

Because the 1866 Act lacked “teeth,” it took nearly a century of struggle to pass the versions of the Civil Rights Act we lean on today.

• The 1866 Act: A Bill in Disguise - Focused primarily on the right to own property and make contracts. It was a “property rights” bill dressed as human rights.

• The 1875 Act - Attempted to ban discrimination in public “accommodations” (hotels, trains), but was struck down by the Supreme Court, proving that legal status was fragile without federal protection.

• The 1964 Act: The turning point. This version finally moved into the public sector, banning segregation in schools and tying federal funding to compliance. This is where the law finally met the classroom.

The Agenda for the Next Civil Rights Act: We need a bill that codifies Resource Equity. It shouldn’t just be illegal to segregate; it should be illegal to underfund. A modern bill must protect digital access as a civil right and mandate mental health ratios that meet the needs of the “Whole Child.”

But equity isn’t just about the right to enter the building; it’s about the tools we are given once we are inside. This is where the “Builders” of our movement come in.

The Legacy of the Builders

Each of these events left a specific “gene” in the DNA of our modern union work:

• The Mechanics’ Institution (April 7, 1824): The spark for vocational education. It proved that the “working man” deserved the same scientific knowledge as the elite.

• The AFT Legacy (April 10): Founded in 1916, our national union turned teaching from a “calling” into a profession. We are the reason there is a middle class in education.

• The Ryan White Case (April 8, 1990): Ryan’s fight to sit in a classroom while living with HIV was a battle for human dignity. Today, that same battle is being fought over class size and student mental health. You cannot have a “right to sit in a classroom” if that classroom is overcrowded, unsafe, or lacks the emotional support a student needs to stay in their seat.

The Booker T. Washington Intersection

Born into slavery on April 6, 1856, Booker T. Washington was a ten-year-old boy when that first 1866 Act was signed. He lived its failure. He saw that legal rights were hollow without the skills to back them up.

What would he say if he walked into a NYC public school today? He’d see students with $1,000 phones who lack the vocational path to a $100,000 career. He’d likely say: “I taught you how to build the building so you could own it; why are you now just waiting for someone to give you a permit to enter it?” He would remind us that education is the only true emancipation.

The Verdict: The White Hat Agenda

In “Trump’s America” of 2026, we are seeing a return to that hollowed-out version of rights—where “choice” is used as a mask for abandonment. Here is what we must accomplish:

1. Bridging the Ryan White Gap: Ensuring mental health is treated with the same legal urgency as physical safety.

2. Reclaiming Vocational Training: Moving beyond being “users” of AI to becoming the architects of it through a New Mechanics’ Movement.

3. Mandating Resource Equity: Moving from the “status” granted in 1866 to the “funding” required in 2026.

History isn’t over. We are writing the entries for the next generation. Let’s make sure we’re building something that lasts.

Which of these “unfinished” areas do you feel most in your building right now? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

On this April 3rd, we revisit “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop.” As unionists in New York City, we shouldn’t just read these words—we should recognize them. The struggle of those men in Memphis is the direct ancestor of our struggle in the UFT today.

The Mirror: Memphis Sanitation and the UFT

When those sanitation workers marched, they weren’t just asking for a raise; they were demanding the recognition of their human dignity. They were fighting against a system that viewed them as “invisible” and “expendable.”

In this concrete jungle, we face the same spirit of opposition. The “Pharaohs” of today don’t always wear crowns; sometimes they wear the suits of budget hawks and city bureaucrats who view our schools as balance sheets rather than sanctuaries. Whether it’s the fight for equitable healthcare for every member, or the urgent push to get the Paraprofessional Bill passed through the City Council, the message from the “Pharaohs” remains the same: Your labor is a commodity, not a calling. When we rally to Fix Tier 6 so our newest teachers can retire with the same dignity as those who came before them, or when we demand that America finally keep its promise of student debt relief for educators, we are carrying the same signs those men carried in 1968. We are asserting that the educator—the teacher, the para, the retiree—is as foundational to the soul of this city as the sanitation worker was to Memphis. By refusing to let them pit “Active” against “Retired” or “Teacher” against “Para,” we dismantle the Pharaoh’s favorite trick: division.

Unity: The “Bigger Picture” King Pointed Toward

King’s most urgent warning in Memphis was about the “Pharaoh’s favorite strategy.” He noted that the only way to keep a people enslaved was to keep them “fighting among themselves.” He knew that if the sanitation workers broke rank, the movement would die in the mud of Memphis.

This is the “bigger picture” that the Unity Caucus represents today. Unity isn’t just a name; it is the strategic defense against the internal division King feared. While opposition slates might focus on the “Dream” of a perfect contract, the caucus focuses on the Demand of a collective front. By protecting our house from being divided—whether through defending our democracy at the “No Kings Rally” or fighting for Tier 6 reform—we are operationalizing King’s final mandate: Stay together.

The Message: From “Dream” to “Demand”

If “I Have a Dream” was the poem of the movement, “Mountaintop” was the union manual. It was grittier. It moved beyond integrated lunch counters and focused on economic withdrawal and redistributive justice.

The Grace of Not Sneezing

Most poignantly, King used this final speech to reflect on his own mortality through a story from Harlem. He recounted the 1958 assassination attempt where he was stabbed in the chest with a steel letter opener. The blade rested so close to his aorta that doctors told him if he had even sneezed, he would have died.

King told the Memphis crowd about a letter he received from a young girl saying, “I am so happy that you didn’t sneeze.” He, too, was happy he didn’t sneeze—not for his own life, but because it allowed him to see the movement flourish, to march in Selma, and finally, to stand with the workers in Memphis. This narrow escape transformed his life into a gift spent entirely on the struggle.

The Inherited Climb: From Memphis to Philadelphia

In the decades since that stormy night in Memphis, few have captured the specific “Mountaintop” gravity that defines the American struggle. However, many look to Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” (2008) as its true successor in spirit.

The parallel is striking: just as King stood before a room of “invisible” men in 1968 to diagnose a “sick nation,” Obama stood before a fractured country forty years later to address the “racial stalemate” that threatened to keep us divided. Where King moved the movement from the Poetry of the Dream to the Manual of the Union, Obama bridged the gap between raw, radical grievances and the hopeful possibility of a shared future.

Both leaders understood that the “Pharaoh’s strategy” only works if we believe our neighbor’s struggle is not our own. By reaching back to the grit of Memphis, Obama helped a new generation believe that the climb was still possible—reminding us that whether we are sanitation workers in 1968 or educators in 2026, the “Promised Land” is not a gift we are given, but a union we must constantly labor to perfect.

A Letter to Dr. King: 58 Years Later

Dear Dr. King,

I read your words tonight in a New York City that feels both brand new and ancient. We have the “freedom to assemble,” but we often use it to shout over one another. We have the “Promised Land” on our maps, but the tolls to get there—Tier 6, healthcare costs, student loans—are higher than ever.

You told us to care more about our brother than ourselves. In the Unity Caucus, we are trying to do just that. We are trying to keep the “Pharaoh” from using his favorite trick on us. We’ve seen the mountaintop, and while our legs are tired, we haven’t walked out of the classroom.

Thank you for not sneezing. We’re still walking.

UFT White Hat Whispers

Leave a comment

As a unionist, I’ve spent my career fighting for the safety of our classrooms. But today, looking across the Atlantic reveals that when we compare how Finland handles a school shooting to our own approach, we aren’t just looking at different laws—we are looking at two entirely different philosophies of childhood and accountability.

The American Parallel: From Newport News to Georgia

The closest American parallel to the Vantaa tragedy isn’t a high school massacre, but the 2023 shooting at Richneck Elementary in Newport News, Virginia. There, a 6-year-old brought his mother’s gun to school and shot his teacher, Abby Zwerner. This incident, much like the one in Finland, involved a child so young that the concept of “criminal intent” felt like a secondary concern compared to the massive failure of adult supervision.

That failure of supervision led to a seismic shift in American justice just 30 days ago. On March 3, 2026, a Georgia jury handed down a guilty verdict for Colin Gray, the father of the 14-year-old who opened fire at Apalachee High School in the city of Winder. Gray was convicted of second-degree murder—a landmark moment because he didn’t pull the trigger himself. Instead, he was found liable for gifting his son an AR-15-style rifle after the FBI had already warned the family about the boy’s violent threats.

The Great Divide: The “Finnish 15”

While we turn toward this “Georgia Model” of punishing parents, Finland remains anchored in a vastly different legal reality: the age of criminal responsibility is 15.

Because the Vantaa shooter was only 12, he could not be arrested, charged, or jailed. Instead, he was handed over to child welfare services for psychiatric care. In Finland, the focus is on establishing facts—including the shooter’s reported motive of “ending the bullying”—rather than seeking a “perp walk.” They treat the shooter as a failed child rather than a successful criminal.

The statistical contrast is staggering. Despite high gun ownership for hunting, Finland has seen only three major school shootings in 20 years. Meanwhile, in the U.S., we have already surpassed 40 gun-related incidents on school campuses in the first three months of 2026 alone.

The 2026 Midterms: The Battle for the House and Senate

In “Trump’s America,” school safety is being redefined by “hardening targets” and removing “disruptive” elements from the classroom. As UFT advocates, we know the danger: the push for universal school choice threatens to siphon funds away from the mental health resources that prevent a child from reaching a breaking point.

To stop this, we must reclaim the House and Senate this November. The math is a razor-thin tightrope:

• The House: We need a net gain of 3 to 4 seats for a majority. The DCCC has launched an aggressive 44-seat offensive list, but we must also look at 8 additional high-potential targets created by recent GOP retirements (like Sam Graves in MO-06 or Tony Gonzales in TX-23) and “Harris-Republican” districts like NY-04 on Long Island and CA-45.

• The Senate: We need a net gain of 2 seats. The “easiest” paths run through Maine, where Susan Collins faces a surge from challenger Graham Platner, and North Carolina, where Roy Cooper is running for the seat vacated by the retired Thom Tillis.

Share

Voices of Conscience and The Path to Change

Change requires allies on both sides. We’ve seen “voices of conscience” like John Cornyn (R-TX) support past safety legislation, and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)—whose suburban PA-01 district is a key battleground—consistently push for background checks. We need to support candidates like Roland Gutierrez in Texas and Lucia Báez-Geller in Florida, who prioritize healing over “hardening.”

The Verdict: A Call to Action

To truly protect our students in this here concrete jungle and across the nation, we must bridge these two worlds. We need the accountability of the Georgia Model and the preventative social safety of the Finnish Model.

This only happens if we vote.

If you know anyone in the suburban battlegrounds—NE-02 (Omaha), NY-17 (Hudson Valley), PA-01 (Bucks County), AZ-01 (Phoenix), or CA-22 (Central Valley)—reach out today. Ensure they are registered. Remind them that a vote for the House and Senate is a vote for the “Whole Child.”

History repeats itself until we learn the lesson. Today, we remember the victims of Vantaa and Apalachee, and we keep fighting for the safety of our schools in New York City and across this nation.

Leave a comment

Dr. King understood a truth that remains “dangerous” to those in power today: civil rights are hollow without labor rights. He knew that the ballot box and the bargaining table are two sides of the same coin. When he spoke to the AFL-CIO in 1961, he noted that the “labor hater” and the “race hater” are almost always the same person.

Why the Torch Must Burn Brighter Now

In our current climate of polarization, some suggest that unions should be “apolitical” or stay in our lane. History, and Dr. King’s walk, tell us otherwise.

• The Struggle Against Division: Dr. King fought the “artificial constructs” of class and bigotry. In our own union, we must be vigilant against any form of “The Other”—whether based on age, background, or belief—that weakens our collective front.

• The Demand for Dignity: Dr. King famously said, “Power surrenders nothing without a demand”. Whether we are fighting for the preservation of our healthcare or the integrity of our classrooms, we carry his torch whenever we refuse to accept “lip service” in place of progress.

• The Bridge of Shared Values: Dr. King was a master of enlisting “natural allies”. To carry his torch today means finding common ground with those who share our values, even when our politics differ, to ensure every educator can retire with dignity and every student has a pathway to the middle class.

To lead effectively, we must ensure our execution matches our intent. Dr. King’s legacy is not a statue to be admired; it is a movement that requires us to keep asking “why” and to never stop demanding “more” for the workers who keep this city running.

The following summary provides a factual counter-narrative and a guide for Chapter Leaders to address these claims in their shops.

1. The Medicare & Health Plan Reality

Arthur claims that leadership “lied” about the Medicare Advantage plan regarding doctor acceptance and co-pays.

• The Reality: Union statements on healthcare are based on the contractual obligations of providers at the time of negotiation; they are not static “lies” but reflections of a fluid bargaining process.

• Co-pays: Changes in co-pays, such as the $100 City MD visit mentioned, are driven by city-wide budget constraints and the necessity to preserve premium-free basic coverage.

• The “Misinformation” Label: President Mulgrew uses this term to describe rhetoric that ignores the legal and financial frameworks, such as the Administrative Code, that govern municipal benefits.

2. The Welfare Fund vs. City Benefits

Arthur conflates the UFT Welfare Fund with City-funded health plans to suggest retirees are being “forced” into unfair premiums.

• Legal Separation: The UFT Welfare Fund is a separate, fiduciary entity from the union and the City; it must remain solvent through actuarial logic, not political petitions.

• Prescription Coverage: The premiums Arthur identifies are a necessary cost-sharing tool to ensure the long-term survival of supplemental benefits for a massive and growing retiree population.

3. The Delegate Assembly (DA) & Due Process

Arthur characterizes the DA as a “cult” and ridicules the reinstatement of a District Representative.

• The President’s Report: Reporting on the President’s speech is a mandated constitutional function of the DA, providing a summary of high-level union policy to the delegates.

• Member Harassment Claims: Elevating a localized seating dispute—involving a “vacant seat”—into a broad indictment of “bigotry” distracts from the actual legislative work of the assembly.

• Administrative Due Process: Reinstating an employee after a served suspension—even for distasteful comments—is a standard application of the same labor protections the UFT fights for every day for its members.

Final Fact Check for Chapter Leaders

The narrative being pushed is misleading because it prioritizes emotional melodrama over the complex work of union governance. By focusing on memes and seating charts, Arthur avoids the hard truth: leadership requires making difficult choices to protect the collective whole.

Leave a comment

Share

At this very moment, as the Venezuelan President sits in a Manhattan courthouse, the United Nations is in an emergency session debating whether this administration has committed a "crime of aggression." The irony is thick enough to choke on: we are teaching our students about the "Rule of Law" while the world’s most powerful nation operates under the "Rule of Might."

The Ghosts of 1991 and 2003

For those of us who have been in the classroom for a few decades, this feels like a grim, high-definition rerun.

• The Persian Gulf Era: We remember the first Bush administration and the "New World Order," where the defense of "sovereignty" was the rallying cry—provided that sovereignty was tied to the flow of oil.

• The Afghanistan & Iraq Era: We remember the second Bush administration, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and the hunt for WMDs that were never there, all while the oil maps were being redrawn in the background.

Now, we see the pattern complete its trilogy. The current administration has dropped the "nation-building" pretense of the past, openly stating that the U.S. will "run" Venezuela and that American oil companies will be the ones to "rebuild" its infrastructure.

It Was Always About the Oil

Let’s be clear with our students: Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. This raid wasn't just a "law enforcement action" against drug trafficking; it was a hostile takeover of a resource. By bypassing Congress and the UN, the administration has signaled that the "Free World" is only free if you play by Washington's rules. 

This move is incredibly dangerous. It jeopardizes the safety of every American abroad and erodes the very international treaties that prevent global anarchy. When the U.S. ignores the UN Charter, we lose the moral authority to call out any other nation for doing the same. We aren't just "securing oil"; we are burning the bridge of international cooperation.

The Teachable Moment

To my fellow educators: this is the curriculum. Our students—especially our seniors who will be voting in the next cycle—are watching a sovereign nation be turned into a corporate subsidiary in real-time. Do not let this moment pass in silence.

• Ask them: Does the end (removing a dictator) justify the means (an illegal invasion)?

• Ask them: If a foreign power raided Washington to arrest a U.S. official, what would we call it?

• Ask them: Who benefits when the drums of war start beating in South America?

We are not just teaching history; we are teaching students how to survive it. Let’s help them see through the "White Hat" rhetoric and understand the cold, oily reality of the "Absolute Resolve" operation. Our job is to create critical thinkers, not just compliant citizens.

I. Bill 1096: The Real Desperation Exposed

The opposition’s intense focus on Bill 1096 is the ultimate proof of their desperation and their contempt for the union’s established democratic processes.

• What is 1096? NYC Council Intro. 1096 is a bill that seeks to amend the City’s Administrative Code. Its purpose is to codify the preservation of traditional Medicare and the choice of a Medigap (Medicare supplemental) plan for current and future city retirees, ensuring benefits are equivalent to or better than those available as of December 31, 2021.

• The True Threat to Union Rights: Intro. 1096 is opposed by major unions, including DC 37, because it would amend the Administrative Code to lock in specific health care requirements without identifying a funding source. This legislative maneuver would effectively impede the union’s ability to collectively bargain over a core benefit, violating the Taylor Law and setting a dangerous anti-union precedent.

  • DC 37’s Executive Director, Henry Garrido, stated that the bill would “take a sledgehammer to the tenets of collective bargaining”.

• The Opposition’s Goal: Bypass and Sabotage: Goldstein’s admission that he supports 1096 to “bypass the Delegate Assembly, and bypass the Unity machine“ confirms that the opposition’s goal is to legislatively circumvent the union’s highest governing body. This is an attack on the UFT’s internal democracy, not a defense of member rights.

II. The “Saved” Health Care: Victory Secured by UFT Strategy

The central claim—that President Michael Mulgrew and Unity “tried to reduce our health care”—is a cynical distortion of a process that led to a landmark victory for retirees.

• The Mandate for Change: The plan to shift retirees to a cost-saving Medicare Advantage plan was driven by the City of New York and the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC). The goal was to secure $600 million in annual health care savings to fund future wage increases and sustain the long-term solvency of premium-free health care for all municipal workers.

• Strategic Adaptation: The UFT leadership, recognizing the anxiety of its retirees and facing legal setbacks, withdrew support for the mandatory Medicare Advantage program.

• The Ultimate Defense: The union and its allies ultimately prevailed when the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, ruled that the City must continue to pay the full cost of any health insurance plan a retiree chooses. This definitive legal protection permanently preserves the right to traditional Medicare supplemental insurance. The threat of a mandatory shift is gone, proving that the necessary protections were secured.

III. The Fiduciary Facts of the Welfare Fund

The attack on the UFT Welfare Fund’s $1 billion surplus is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading.

• Legally Restricted Funds: The Welfare Fund is governed by strict federal and state fiduciary rules. These rules dictate that the funds are designated specifically for supplementary benefits (like optical and dental) and cannot be legally or unilaterally moved to cover costs in other, separate areas, such as the retiree pharmacy component (SHIP).

• Financial Responsibility: The UFT leadership is legally bound to manage these costs to ensure the longevity of all supplemental benefits for its members. The claim that the surplus should simply be raided to cover unrelated costs demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of financial law and fiduciary responsibility.

Conclusion: A Campaign of Division

Goldstein’s entire piece is a campaign of division. It is the action of a desperate opposition willing to:

1. Undermine the foundational union right to collective bargaining by supporting Intro. 1096.

2. Lie by ignoring the definitive legal victory that secured retiree health care.

3. Attack the integrity of professional staff like the union’s lawyer and engage in ad hominem smears.

The opposition’s desperation is not over a policy failure, but over their failure to win the political battle. The UFT leadership, through strategic action, secured the right to premium-free traditional Medicare supplemental coverage. The opposition’s only recourse is to cling to internal grudges and engage in political mud-slinging.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share UFT’s Substack

My UFT sibs, grab your coffee (or something stronger).

Zohran Mamdani—the 34-year-old Democratic Socialist—is officially our Mayor-elect. The papers call it a "tectonic shift" and a "mandate for transformation". Let’s cut through the noise. For those of us grinding it out in the classroom, the Mayor is just a talking head on the news. All eyes are focused on one thing: the person sitting in the big chair at Tweed. Because that’s who decides if our lives are miserable or manageable.

The selection of the next Schools Chancellor is the first real test of whether this new administration wants a revolution at Tweed, or an anchor to steady the ship. The whispers coming out of the transition team are loud. We are staring down a fiscal cliff, a migrant crisis that requires logistics (not slogans), and a new philosophy called "co-governance" that threatens to turn every decision into a committee meeting.

So, who keeps the target off our backs? Let’s break down the contenders, UFT style.

The Contenders: The Good, The Bad, and The "Please, God, No"

1. The Incumbent: Melissa Aviles-Ramos ("The Fix")

The Vibe: The devil you know.

The Whispers: Currently, she’s the one Mulgrew and our leadership have publicly backed.

The Uptown View: She knows where the bodies are buried. She’s an insider who came up as a teacher and principal. Keeping her means continuity. We are deep in the weeds with "NYC Reads"—do you really want to scrap all that training and start a new "revolutionary" curriculum next September? She also managed "Project Open Arms" without total collapse.

The Downtown Reality: She’s got the "Adams Stigma". To the progressives, she represents the "deep state" of the old guard. The fear is she might be too nice—a "loyal lieutenant" who won't fight back when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announces cuts.

Meanwhile Back at the Ranch: Stability is “the new bag”. Our history with her shows that she listens, and frankly, we’re tired of disruption.

2. The Revolutionary: Jamaal Bowman ("The Wild Card")

The Vibe: Big dreams, messy paperwork.

The Whispers: He’s Mamdani’s "brother" in the movement. He talks a good game about "human liberation" and ending the testing madness.

The Uptown View: He hates high-stakes testing as much as we do. A Chancellor who wants to end the data-obsession? Sounds like paradise.

The Downtown Reality: Siblings, look at the record. When he was a principal, he let his School Building Leader (SBL) certification lapse for two years. Let that sink in. If you or I let our license lapse for two days, we’d be pulled from the classroom. Do we want a boss who plays by different rules?

And watch the hands, not the mouth. Bowman built his brand on being a "miracle worker" in the Bronx, but when the cameras turned off in 2019, his building was reading at 26% proficiency. That’s the "vig" on his leadership. When the numbers were up, he pointed at the scoreboard. When they were down, he called the game rigged. You can't claim the championship ring one year and call the league 'slavery' the next.

Meanwhile Back at the Ranch: You want to know why we should be terrified? Look at the tape. We aren't talking about policy; we're talking about temperament. This is a grown man who pulled a fire alarm in Congress because a door was locked, then claimed he thought it was a keycard. He was a NYC Principal for a decade—he knows what that red lever does. If he causes a building evacuation to save five minutes on his commute, what does he do when the OMB rejects his budget? He doesn’t negotiate; he pulls the lever and creates chaos. We need a leader, not a liability.

3. The Integrationist: Kamar Samuels ("The Goldilocks")

The Vibe: Smart, tough, but scares the rich folks.

The Whispers: He’s the "insider-reformer" from District 3.

The Uptown View: He actually does the work. He desegregated District 3 without burning the district down. He prefers the IB model over high-stakes testing, which is a solid pedagogical move.

The Downtown Reality: He is public enemy #1 for groups like PLACE.

Meanwhile Back at the Ranch: If he gets in, the middle-class flight to the suburbs might accelerate. Less enrollment = less funding = excessing. That’s the math we have to worry about.

4. The Made Woman: Rita Joseph ("The Teacher")

The Vibe: One of us. Literally.

The Whispers: She spent 22 years at P.S. 6.

The Uptown View: She has moral authority. She knows what a class size of 32 feels like. She knows the struggle of ELLs because she lived it.

The Downtown Reality: She’s never run a bureaucracy. Going from the City Council Ed Committee to running a $38 billion agency is a terrifying jump. We need someone who can manage complex contracts on Day 1, not someone learning the ropes while the ship is taking on water.

The Outsiders ("The Do-Not-Touch List")

Alex Marrero (Denver)

Fights with his board, mediocre evaluations, and anti-union vibes over COLA adjustments?. Pass.

Angelica Infante-Green (RI)

A top-down "reformer" who is currently at war with her teachers' unions. Hard pass.

The Verdict: Who Should Get the Rose?

Mamdani has a choice between three futures: Stability (Aviles-Ramos), Revolution (Bowman), or Equity Reform (Samuels).

The Choice for the Membership:

If we are looking strictly at what protects the rank-and-file, keeps the checks clearing, and stops the constant churning of initiatives, the choice is clear:

Melissa Aviles-Ramos.

Here is the reasoning, minus the noise:

1. Do No Harm: We are facing a "fiscal cliff." We cannot afford a Chancellor who is learning on the job (Joseph) or one who creates chaos that distracts from the budget fight (Bowman). Aviles-Ramos is the technocrat who keeps the machine running.

2. Respect the License: We hold ourselves to professional standards. We cannot have a Chancellor who failed to maintain his own certification. It sends a demoralizing message to every dues-paying member who follows the rules.

3. Continuity: We have spent years adapting to "NYC Reads." We need to finish the job, not pivot to a new "ideological laboratory."

4. Strategic Ally: Our leadership has already signaled she is the partner we can work with. In a "co-governance" world, having a Chancellor who understands the UFT contract is better than a visionary who doesn't know what a grievance is.

Mamdani might want a revolution, but we need a shield. Aviles-Ramos buys us time and stability. Let the politicians play their games at City Hall; we need a steady hand at Tweed.

Stay strong, stay united, and check your certifications.

The dust has settled. The unthinkable (to the consultants) and the inevitable (to the organizers) has happened. Zohran Mamdani is heading to City Hall.

The panic in the real estate boardrooms is palpable. The chatter at the Tweed Courthouse is nervous. But here in the breakrooms and the chapter leader group chats, the feeling is different. It’s cautious optimism mixed with a very specific question: Now what?

We know the “socialist” label scares the establishment. But let me whisper a secret that the tabloids won’t tell you: Competent progressivism is actually good for business, and it’s great for the city.

If Zohran wants to avoid the traps that caught De Blasio (high rhetoric, slow execution) and Adams (swagger over substance), his first 100 days need to be surgical. Here is my prediction on how Mamdani pulls off the impossible: merging deep structural change with high-functioning city services.

1. The “Free Move” Initiative (Days 1-14)

Zohran knows his brand is built on transit. He can’t fix the MTA overnight (that’s still the Governor’s fiefdom), but he can control the streets.

My Suggestion:

He should execute an Executive Order in Week 1 expanding the “Free Bus” pilot program from five lines to one line in every Community Board district.

Why it works:

It’s immediate. It puts money back in the pockets of working-class New Yorkers (our paraprofessionals and our parents) instantly. It proves that “universal basic services” isn’t just a theory—it’s a bus ride. It buys him massive goodwill while he fights the bigger battles.

2. The “Tweed” Clean-Up & The Classroom Contract (Days 15-45)

Here is where the rubber meets the road for us. The UFT has been locked in a cycle of adversarial nonsense with the DOE for too long.

My Suggestion:

Mamdani shouldn’t just talk about the Class Size Law; he should weaponize the budget to enforce it. I suggest an “Educator Autonomy” directive. No more micromanagement from superintendents who haven’t been in a classroom since the 90s.

The Twist:

He could pair this with a push to convert vacant commercial real estate into school annexes to solve the space issue. This solves two problems: the commercial real estate collapse and the overcrowded classroom. It’s a progressive solution to a capitalist crisis.

“A mayor who treats teachers as partners rather than adversaries isn’t ‘radical’—it’s efficient.”

3. Social Housing: The “Build Baby Build” (But Make It Public) (Days 46-75)

The narrative is that progressives are NIMBYs. Zohran has to kill that narrative to survive.

My Suggestion:

He should announce the creation of a Social Housing Development Authority. Instead of begging developers to add a few “affordable” units in exchange for tax breaks, the City could act as its own developer on city-owned land.

Why it sets him up for success:

It creates union construction jobs (winning over the Building Trades) and creates permanently affordable housing. If he breaks ground on one major social housing project in his first 100 days, he proves that the government can build things again.

Share

4. The “Quality of Life” Left Hook (Days 76-100)

This is the danger zone. The Right will attack him on crime and trash. If the streets are dirty, the ideology doesn’t matter.

My Suggestion:

Mamdani should reallocate part of the bloated police overtime budget not into “defunding,” but into Civilian Care Response Teams and aggressive sanitation services.

Imagine a city where mental health professionals respond to distress calls (freeing up cops for actual crime) and where trash containerization is fully funded. If the city looks cleaner and feels safer under a socialist mayor, the conservative argument collapses.

The Verdict: The “LaGuardia” Model

Fiorello LaGuardia was a radical for his time. He was also a master builder and a champion of the working man.

Zohran Mamdani has the chance to be the modern equivalent. The path to becoming a historic mayor isn’t about abandoning his principles to move to the center; it’s about execution.

If he focuses on service delivery—making sure the buses run, the trash is picked up, and the schools are supported—while implementing his redistributive policies, he will be unbeatable.

The establishment is betting on him to fail. They are betting on chaos.

My bet? He’s going to bore them with competence and thrill us with results.

Stay tuned, and keep your eyes on the contract negotiations.

What’s the Big Idea, Anyway?

At its core, the administration is attempting to streamline – or, depending on your perspective, dismantle – the federal agency dedicated to education. The rationale presented is that K-12 education is essentially preparation for the workforce, and therefore, its management should align with the Department of Labor’s focus on workforce development and worker rights (yeah right). Significant federal funding streams, like the $18 billion Title One for high-poverty schools, and various support programs for teachers and students, are caught in this departmental reshuffle.

Can We Find Any Upside Here? Let’s Ponder...

From my vantage point, finding genuine positives in bureaucratic upheaval is a challenge. However, I have considered all angles.

• A Potential (But Unlikely) Synergy? The administration’s argument hinges on connecting education directly to “career readiness”. If, and this is a colossal “if,” this move genuinely fortified pathways between our classrooms and meaningful careers, providing better vocational training or apprenticeships that are genuinely supported by federal structures, that could offer a benefit. It might mean more resources for programs that clearly demonstrate post-graduation success.

• The Bureaucracy Mirage: They’re claiming this will reduce bureaucracy. If, hypothetically, by moving oversight, some of the more convoluted administrative requirements for accessing federal funds were simplified, that could lead to smoother operations for schools and districts. This remains purely speculative, of course.

The Real Concerns: Where Our Focus Lies

Now, let’s talk about where our collective experience and analysis lead us. These are the points that should keep our “White Hats” firmly on and our antennae tuned.

• Educational Expertise Evaporating? The Department of Education was established precisely to house and advance educational expertise at the federal level. Moving K-12 oversight to the Department of Labor, an agency with a fundamentally different mission and skillset, risks diluting that specialized knowledge. Will Labor officials truly grasp the nuances of early childhood education, special education support, or the complexities of federal funding for disadvantaged students in the way the Dept. of Ed. was intended to? This fragmentation risks creating a vacuum of informed educational leadership.

• Erosion of Federal Standards and Protections: Federal involvement in education, from Title One to civil rights protections, has historically been a crucial lever for equity. Unions have always championed these standards to ensure that all students, regardless of zip code or background, have access to a quality education and are protected from discrimination. When you disperse these functions, you weaken the federal government’s ability to enforce these vital protections.

• The Peril of Silos: The very reason the Department of Education was consolidated was to avoid the fragmentation that arises when educational programs are scattered like loose change across various government departments. As education leaders have pointed out, this silo effect leads to fragmented results. For teachers and school administrators trying to navigate federal support and regulations, this promises to be a confusing, inefficient, and potentially detrimental landscape.

• Subverting the Democratic Process: These significant changes are being made administratively, bypassing Congress. For a union that believes in process, transparency, and the democratic mandate, this is deeply troubling. The creation and structure of federal departments are matters for our elected representatives, not for executive fiat alone. This suggests an agenda to reshape federal education policy through executive action rather than legislative consensus.

• The “Dismantle” Blueprint: Let’s be clear: this administration has been vocal about its desire to eliminate the Department of Education. These moves are not isolated incidents; they are stepping stones in a deliberate plan to diminish the federal role in public education, a role that, imperfect as it may be, provides essential support and a commitment to equal opportunity.

Our Role As Educators and Unionists

For us at the UFT, this means doubling down on our advocacy. Our leadership in their “White Hats” are trained to identify challenges and devise solutions. We must assist them by:

• Amplifying the Voice of Educators: Ensure that the on-the-ground realities of teaching and learning are heard loud and clear in any discussions about policy.

• Scrutinizing the Details: Keep informed about which specific programs are moving where and how they are being managed. The devil, as always, is in the details.

• Building Coalitions: Work with allies in the education community and civil society to push back against efforts that weaken our public schools.

• Reinforcing the Value of Federal Support: Continue to advocate for the critical role the federal government is supposed to play in ensuring equitable and quality education for all students.

This reshuffling is more than just bureaucratic shuffling; it’s a fundamental challenge to the federal commitment to public education. We must remain vigilant, informed, and united in our defense of our students and our profession.

Keep your “White Hats” on, and let me know your observations and concerns in the comments.

Good night! It's important to separate thoughtful questions from coordinated attempts to sow discord. Leah Lin’s recent post raises several points that warrant a clear, fact-based response. The goal of this deal is to maintain a premium-free plan for our members in a national healthcare environment where costs are skyrocketing. Let’s address the "myths" with documented reality, not fearmongering.

On the Process: DA Vote and the MLC Steering Committee

Leah claims the Delegate Assembly (DA) vote is "performative" because the Municipal Labor Council (MLC) Steering Committee meets earlier.

• The Fact: The UFT Delegate Assembly is the union's highest decision-making body. The DA votes to set a binding mandate for the UFT's representative (President Mulgrew) on the MLC. The MLC is a coalition of over 100 unions, and its Steering Committee's function is to organize the broader MLC vote, which happens after major unions like the UFT set their mandate via their democratic process. The DA votes to instruct the UFT’s position, and that position is carried to the MLC. This is the established, democratic procedure for a union that is part of a large labor coalition. It is designed to ensure the UFT's position is formed by its delegates before the coalition's final vote.

Mulgrew Myth #1: "Premium-free"

Leah argues that the $600 million in annual savings agreed to in 2018 comes out of wages, making the plan non-free.

• The Fact: The 2018 agreement was a commitment to achieve healthcare savings in exchange for securing premium-free health coverage for active members and pre-65 retirees in perpetuity. This is a fundamental benefit security, separate from the wage negotiation process. The UFT's recent contracts (like the 2023 contract with a 17.5% increase over 5.5 years) demonstrate that the union is actively fighting to close the gap between salary and the cost of living. The plan is premium-free at the point of enrollment, a massive benefit protected by achieving these savings. Conflating two separate negotiations is a deliberate tactic to confuse members.

Mulgrew Myth #2: "More providers."

Leah dismisses "providers" as merely "tele-health apps" and ignores the network expansion.

• The Fact: The new NYC Employees PPO (NYCEPPO) plan, administered by Emblem Health and United Healthcare, is explicitly designed to expand the national network. The current GHI-CBP plan has a limited network outside of the NYC area, forcing members and dependents who live elsewhere into significant out-of-network costs. The new plan offers access to a broad national network through United Healthcare, which is a clear benefit for thousands of members and pre-65 retirees who reside outside the local 13-county downstate New York area. While details on prior authorization are still being finalized, the expansion of access is an undeniable improvement on paper. This is clearly a bigger win for our members who reside outside of the NY area.

Mulgrew Myth #3: "Self-funded is safer."

Leah states the plan being self-funded gives the city control to "cut costs" and claims the Stabilization Fund is bankrupt.

• The Fact: New York City's municipal health program has always been self-funded, meaning the City (not an insurance company) pays the claims. This is not a new feature of the NYCEPPO plan. The purpose of the Healthcare Stabilization Fund is to serve as a savings account, drawing interest to help offset future cost increases. Any claims of "bankrupt" status and "misuse" require specific, publicly-documented proof of illegal activity, not just conjecture. A self-funded plan, when managed correctly, is common for large employers, and the MLC's leverage is intended to keep the City accountable to fund the required care.

Mulgrew Myth #4: "Leadership will protect us."

Leah brings up United Healthcare's reputation for claims denial and the use of AI.

• The Fact: United Healthcare's prior authorization and AI issues have been largely documented in its Medicare Advantage plans—a different type of plan for retirees that the UFT and its members successfully fought to stop. All major insurance carriers use algorithms for utilization review, and yes, United Healthcare has been cited for high denial rates. The critical difference is the MLC is negotiating a specific contract for our active members, and the union's ongoing role is to monitor compliance. The union's job is not to find a perfect insurer, because one doesn't exist, but to secure the best contract with the most leverage. The fact that the previously proposed Medicare Advantage plan was successfully stopped, demonstrates that leadership will act when a plan is deemed detrimental to members' interests.

Conclusion

Leah and her caucus thrive on creating division by taking complex negotiations, isolating one or two inconvenient truths, and twisting them into a doomsday narrative. They are not seeking a better deal; they are seeking followers through grievance.

Before hitting "send" on her post, one has to ask: Who did she consult with to develop these complex financial and procedural theories? Because the simple, non-conspiratorial explanation for the process and the facts about the plan itself suggest a fundamental lack of understanding or a deliberate choice to prioritize sensationalism over the truth. In fact, she's so desperate to maintain her outrage narrative that it's no wonder she didn't even post a video of this long, scripted piece. I, for one, am tired of her just reading a script.

This is a negotiated agreement designed to preserve a premium-free plan for 750,000 people. If we allow baseless fear to derail it, the ultimate cost will be borne by our members in the form of premiums or reduced care. The choice is between responsible union leadership and a relentless pursuit of divisive rhetoric.

Well, the dust has settled, and Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air. If you think this was just a simple "celebrity gets cancelled, then un-cancelled" story, you haven't been paying attention to the playbook being run by the far right. They tried to make history a weapon, but the public learned from it, and they used that knowledge to push back.

Let's rewind, shall we? Back in the day, you had Johnny Carson. A comedic legend, and he certainly poked fun at presidents, including Richard Nixon. But Nixon, for all his paranoia, understood the delicate balance of a free press and the futility of trying to silence a comedian. He knew that directly attacking Carson, and attempting to pull his show, would likely backfire, making Carson a free speech martyr and Nixon look like a censorious tyrant. The public would have rallied around the comedian, not against him.

Fast forward to Kimmel. For years, the right has been using every tool in the book to discredit and demonize late-night hosts, and Kimmel has been a prime target. His monologues aren't just jokes; they are often pointed social and political commentary, and increasingly, they expose the hypocrisy of the powerful. The comments about Charlie Kirk's murder? That was the pretext they were looking for. The right couldn’t find the humor in the snippet, instead they feigned outrage over a "smear" and a "politicization of a tragedy."

This time, the right wing wasn't going to make Nixon's "mistake." They saw an opportunity. They understood that the cultural landscape had shifted, and that a vocal, well-organized minority could leverage a social media outrage campaign to exert real-world pressure. They also understood the power of a consolidated media market and the leverage held by political appointees in regulatory bodies.

So, they didn't just complain. They acted. The Trump-influenced FCC, reportedly made inquiries. Major station groups, some owned by politically aligned companies, pulled the plug. This wasn't a grassroots protest; this was a calculated, strategic move designed to intimidate and censor. It was a demonstration of a power, a chilling message that said, "If you challenge us, we will use every lever of government and corporate influence to silence you." 

And it worked, for a while, didn't it? Kimmel was off the air. The "establishment" was rattled. It proved that the pendulum of power, and of censorship, could swing back with a vengeance.

Now, Kimmel is back. What does that mean? It means Disney, ABC, and a coalition of viewers and free speech advocates felt the pressure from the right, and they pushed back harder. It was a a strategic retreat by the right wing, a concession that their attempt at censorship had backfired. This is a victory for free speech, a sign that corporations, when faced with a choice between kowtowing to authoritarians and standing by their talent, can be compelled to do the right thing.

But make no mistake, this isn't over. Disney bringing Kimmel back is a necessary and brave decision, but the repercussions could be significant. It signals to the far right that their tactics will not be tolerated, that the "woke agenda" is, in reality, a defense of democratic values and a free press. It further infuriates a segment of the population that thrives on grievance. What happens to their stock? How many people will visit their theme parks worldwide? What happens to their viewership in the long run? These are the questions we need to be asking. The market, ultimately, will decide.

What should we Americans do now?

We must be vigilant. This wasn't just about Kimmel; it was about the weaponization of government and the battle for the very soul of our country.

1. Demand Accountability: Don't let corporations off the hook. If they bow to political pressure to silence journalists and comedians, let them know with your wallet. Boycotts work.

2. Support a Free Press: The mainstream media is under attack. Seek out credible journalists, content creators, and news sources that stand for truth and fact, not partisan talking points. We need a truly free marketplace of ideas, not an echo chamber of disinformation.

3. Engage Locally: The cultural battle isn't just fought on national television. It's in our schools, our local libraries, and our community boards and organizations. Get involved. Speak up against censorship and intimidation.

4. Educate Yourselves: Understand the history of authoritarianism and its use of propaganda to consolidate power. Learn how to spot disinformation. Don't be swayed by emotional appeals or partisan rhetoric. Think critically.

This fight is far from over. The right wing has showed their hand, demonstrating that they are willing to use every tool in the toolbox to push back against the very principles of democracy. We've seen the power of history, and the power of collective action. It's time to keep our eyes open, our voices strong, and our resolve unwavering.

Let's remain patriotic in its true essence.

This isn't my usual post. My routine is to shine a light on the quiet truths that echo through our union hall, to connect the dots others miss, and to do right by my UFT siblings. But today, the alarm bells are so loud they're deafening. The news is no longer a buzz; it's a gut punch that's too big to ignore.

They pulled Jimmy Kimmel. Just like that. A voice, a platform for dissent, satire, and a different point of view, is now… silent.

We're being fed a familiar line about "offensive remarks" or "insensitivity." But we know better. The pretext is always generic, the reasons vague and palatable. The real reason? He poked the orange bear. He dared to mock and challenge the regime's narrative, and for that, he was taken from the airwaves.

This isn't just a TV show being canceled. This is a bell tolling for all of us. When they can silence a late-night host with a 17 million dollar platform, what do you think they'll do to you, to me, to the Substack writers or the YouTube commentator?

To understand where we're headed, we have to look back at history's darkest moments. Think of Nazi Germany. Not just the concentration camps and the book burnings, but the day-to-day suffocation—the whispers in the hallways, the self-censorship, the fear of condemnation.

The Nazi regime didn’t just punish defiance; it created a system where falling in line was the safest option. They controlled the press, the arts, the words people were allowed to speak. Dissenters weren't just jailed; they were erased from history, their names and faces scrubbed from official records. The message was clear: step out of line, and you cease to exist.

This isn’t a perfect comparison, of course. We aren't there yet. But the trajectory is unmistakable. The same impulse to control the narrative, crush opposing viewpoints, and use the full weight of corporate and governmental power to enforce a single, unified message—it’s the same old playbook. They just call it something different.

And what a familiar playbook it is. The German pastor Martin Niemöller lived through it, giving us a chilling reminder of what happens when good people stand by and do nothing. His poem, "First they came...", outlines the order of a governmental takeover:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The socialists were first. Anyone speaking out against the government was targeted first because of their influence. This included political opponents, organized labor, writers, artists, and religious leaders.

Doesn’t this sound familiar? It should. We've seen it play out in real time. We've seen Trump's rhetoric go after political opponents like Obama, Biden and Harris. We’ve seen his administration attack federal workers and unions, and we, as educators, know firsthand his attempts to dismantle the Department of Education from within.

The playbook includes book banning in schools and now, what can be said on the airwaves. This is why our own Randi Weingarten wrote her book, Why Fascists Hate Teachers. She makes it clear that history shows authoritarians fear educators who teach critical thinking.

The next target? Religious leaders. While we haven't seen religious leaders targeted in the same manner as the Nazis did in Germany, we will see it on a different scale. Be prepared for this administration to go after those who speak out on issues like the administration’s immigration policy in the form of audits, legal challenges, and endless bureaucracy.

The intent is the same: to silence dissent.

So, what is in store for America?

If we let this continue, the future is a quiet one. A future where every news report sounds the same, every comedian tells the same joke, and every opinion that deviates from the approved script is met with professional ruin. The marketplace of ideas will become a single, state-sanctioned supermarket aisle, with a limited selection of pre-packaged thoughts.

The danger isn’t just about free speech. It’s about the soul of the country. A vibrant, healthy democracy is a noisy one. It's filled with clashing ideas, heated debates, satire, and protest. When we lose that, we become a nation of sheep, led quietly to a pasture we never chose.

So, what can we as educators do?

We aren't on the airwaves or at the helm of major networks. But our mission is more critical than ever. We must teach critical thinking, not just facts. We must encourage our students to question, to seek out different sources, and to understand the difference between an argument and a talking point. We must create spaces where open and respectful debate is not just tolerated but celebrated. We must equip the next generation with the tools to see through the propaganda, recognize the playbook, and stand up for the principles of a free society.

We must not be silent. Now is the time to speak louder, to stand together, and to refuse to accept this new, terrifying quiet. Because the sound of silence is the sound of freedom dying. And those of us in the UFT who wear the white hat know how this story goes if we don't act now.

As a kid, my parents taught me a valuable lesson about accountability. It started with a simple question from my mother: "Now, who are you blaming?" If I pointed a finger at another child for a broken toy, she would then say, "Since you're pointing fingers, what three reasons would you have for doing this myself?" She would then explain that my three fingers pointing back at me represented my potential faults. For instance, maybe I was just as messy as the other kids and didn't want to admit it, or I was being careless and added to the mess after I originally cleaned the house, or perhaps I didn't want to admit I was the one who didn’t complete my chores today. It was a simple activity that helped me to place less blame on others and take more accountability for my actions. This lesson is particularly relevant to the recent summer school payment issues for paraprofessionals and the public finger-pointing that has followed.

Share

Misplaced Blame and a Questionable Record

Recently, a social media post authored by a woman who, in an odd and unsettling act of self-identification a couple of elections ago, changed her digital name to Marie Para (unless, of course, she was running from the law and needed an alias), criticized Priscilla Castro, the UFT Chair of the Paraprofessional Chapter, for summer school payment delays.

This is a classic case of misplaced blame. Priscilla is a union representative, not the employer. She doesn't process payroll or enter timekeeping; her role is to advocate for her members and assist with issues. The true culprit here is not an individual, but a systemic issue within the payroll process itself. This failure affects every member of the school's staff, including the secretaries who are also union members. They, too, are caught in the crossfire of an inefficient system.

This isn't the first time Marie Para has seemed more interested in finding fault than in finding solutions. She is the same person who appeared to post with a sense of excitement when it seemed that the para respect check bill might not make it to the Council Floor for discussion. As the saying goes, "one person's misfortune is another's joy," and it's a sad irony that someone who should be part of the group fighting for better pay is instead gleefully anticipating its failure.

The Three Fingers Pointing Back at Marie

This situation brings us back to the finger. When Marie Para points a finger at Priscilla Castro, three fingers point back at her. The smallest of those fingers, the pinky, represents her misplaced blame, a blame she should have directed at herself for allowing this situation to fester within her circle without finding a solution.

We're left with two remaining reasons why Marie should be pointing at herself, and two remaining fingers. The first is the disunity expressed in the apparent joy in the wake of her colleagues' disappointment, and the second is her self-serving actions, as she's not posting to help members, but to serve her political caucus by misidentifying Unity as the problem, thereby lending more credibility to her slate…thereby “Frustrating Us.”

In no particular order, the remaining two fingers are the ring finger and the middle finger. In Western culture, the ring finger is associated with relationships and commitment. As for the middle finger, we all know its universal meaning of profound disregard.

You've read this far, so here's an assignment for you. Take the poll, matching one of the remaining two reasons with the middle finger.

Leave a comment

Start Survey

Link to Linda Acevedo’s post to me

My friend, Linda,

Reading your post, laid bare for all to see, hit me profoundly. Every word you wrote resonated deeply, capturing the frustration and outrage I felt when I had that exchange with Steve. You didn't just articulate the issue; you perfectly echoed the sentiment so many of us are experiencing.

That desperate "cult" accusation from Steve – it’s a worn-out record, isn’t it? But then to see Marianne, Ms. Pizzitola herself, brazenly breaching our internal family issues and business—essentially inserting herself into our family business—by going after a UFT member online and attempting to intimidate those who bravely chose to reveal themselves or speak anonymously against her malicious lies? It makes one wonder: does she allow people to waltz into her own home, feed her with lies, and dictate her every move? The audacity is truly breathtaking. You're right, Linda, it’s not just hypocritical; it's a chilling display of continued manipulation.

The memory of her past actions – using profile pics, naming "enemies," inciting division – casts such a dark shadow over her current claims. For her to attack someone for choosing not to display their name and face, while her own camp of "anonymous keyboard snipers" operate freely? It's not just laughable, as you said; it’s a direct insult to the intelligence of our membership. The rules, once again, apply only when convenient for them.

A writer should have the right to choose whether they want to remain anonymous. I Commend you for standing against this bullying and hypocrisy. It is a testament to true courage. But let’s not get it twisted, just because I refuse to reveal my identity, does not make me a coward.

They keep pulling me back into the spotlight, but it's for moments like these, when principled voices like yours stand up against the manipulation, a beacon cutting through the darkness.

So, as you swing in your hammock, taking in the breathtaking evening under the watchful stars, much like a silent guardian overlooking our city, know that I'm right there watching over you and ready to step in when the I am summoned. Like you, I remain steadfast in my commitment to shining a light on these truths. When the Unity-signal shines bright in the sky, it is a call to protect our beloved union.

The fact that those who lost the election are still fixated on me as a writer tells you everything. They are afraid. Afraid of the truth, afraid of accountability, afraid of what might one day be revealed. That fear is what gives it "oxygen." The oxygen they so desperately need to burn this union down

Linda, thank you for your unwavering support, for calling me no coward, and for reminding me that I am still needed onstage. Your words are a powerful affirmation.

I want you find hope in the promise of cohesion and collaboration, know that I share that same hope. The anger may fade, but the commitment to truth and a better future for our union will not.

I've got your back, Linda. And I've got Unity Caucus's back. Always.

In Unity,

UFT White Hat Whispers

To and ABC Caucus,

The "results are in," they declared.

While "A Better Contract" (ABC) scrambles to spin its loss into a "movement," let's be clear: what happened is a decisive victory for our union, for truth, and for the members who saw straight through their manufactured outrage and carefully crafted narratives.

The statement stated that ABC was running against a "well-funded machine" with "decades of institutional control."

This is from a slate bankrolled by a multi-million-dollar organization—or a single individual. This individual is known for swindling retirees’ hard-earned, fixed incomes. The hypocrisy is staggering. Did ABC take a cut of those ill-gotten gains? Let's talk about transparency.

They boasted about "member energy."

Unity Caucus has real member energy. The kind that doesn't need a single cent from outside organizations. The kind that doesn't need to hide the murky pasts of every candidate on its executive slate. Your "member energy" fizzled when members discovered the inconvenient truths you desperately tried to conceal.

"A Better Contract was never just a slate. It is a movement."

The irony is rich. You tried to be slick, claiming you weren't a slate, desperately trying to guarantee that you would influence those elected candidates after the election by riding the coattails of members of your caucus, slate, “movement” who were already well established in their caucuses. Well, it didn't work. You had to declare your “movement” as a slate, and you lost.

And, as always, your post conveniently omits any mention of non-DOE members. This glaring oversight perfectly highlights your fundamental lack of respect for all UFT members.

You're right, the "landscape was reshaped…"

Alright—reshaped by the lies, the hatred, and the insatiable greed of the puppeteers pulling your slate's strings.

You’re also correct that members did take ownership of this union.

They did so by overwhelmingly voting for Unity. The numbers speak for themselves.

You want to take credit for "shifting the narrative" and bringing demands for transparency and democratic reform into the open?

Please. For decades, calls for transparency and democratic reform have resonated within UFT discourse. While you might claim to have “shifted the narrative” on these issues, they have long been central to our union’s conversations. Unity Caucus is committed to continuous advancement and readily acknowledges areas where we can improve. Our willingness to self-reflect is a testament to our dedication to our members.

As for "promises" made by Unity…

Remember that many of our caucus members are directly affected by those very same commitments. We don't need you to "watch" us. If you are truly about the work, drop the "us vs. them" narrative. Join us and work. We are Unity, and our very name reflects our commitment to unifying our entire membership, not tearing it apart.

Interestingly, you claim this election engaged more members. If I recall correctly, your slate was busy filing numerous court cases, suppressing members' voting rights. The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

"No amount of money or messaging can stop a union whose members are ready to lead." You got that exactly right. Your resounding loss is the ultimate proof. Your bully friend paid for your lawyers, frivolous lawsuits, and airtime on her favorite media outlet. And yet, you still lost. We are not stupid.

The "heart of your efforts" wasn't "member-driven."

It was vengeance and rage, born from your arrogance, pettiness, and utter lack of respect for your colleagues. You know nothing about truly being "member-driven." You only managed to get members to jump on your bandwagon by spreading vicious lies, meticulously crafted to divide our union.

The membership has spoken. Now, let's get back to the real work, united.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

https://uftwhitehatwhispers.substack.com/p/understanding-the-uft-election-noise

We’ll pick up with their "Member Referendums on Key Issues" in the "First 60 Days." They promise "member-wide digital referendums" on what we want in our contract, healthcare policy, and how union money is spent. Sounds good on the surface, right? More of a direct say!

But let's stop and think for a second. Are they saying we don't have a say now? That's just not true. Regarding contract priorities, our union leadership works hard to get input from us through surveys, discussions in schools with our Chapter Leaders, and at borough meetings. That feedback directly informs the Contract Negotiation Team. And for big decisions about union policy, we have the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly, where our elected representatives from every school and chapter come together, debate issues, and vote.

Can you imagine informing every UFT member about the complex healthcare policy in a simple yes/no digital poll?

Our Delegate Assembly exists precisely because Chapter Leaders and Delegates are elected to turnkey information back to the membership. Saying we need referendums implies our current ways of getting input and making decisions aren't democratic, and that ignores the work that goes into surveys, chapter meetings, and the debates during the Delegate Assembly each month.

Next, they introduced a plan to implement a "Ratification Amendment" guaranteeing a majority vote for all contracts by unit and protecting retiree healthcare benefits.

Again, looking at the facts, the ratification of our contracts by the members of the bargaining units involved is already a part of the UFT Constitution, and yes, it requires a majority vote. This isn't some new democratic idea ABC is bringing to the table; it's already done this way. Promising an "amendment" to guarantee something already happening is misleading, frankly.

Healthcare for retirees continues to hit a nerve because of the recent fight over the Medicare Advantage plan. And yes, that was a tough fight. But here's what you need to see: Members spoke out. And what happened? The current UFT leadership listened and withdrew support for that plan.

That shows that the leadership was responsive. Promising a new amendment to "protect" benefits makes it sound like our union leaders don't want to protect them or that the system is completely broken, which isn't the full picture, especially when you see that members voiced their concerns and they listened.

Additionally, a resolution was passed at the Delegate Assembly in December 2024 - “No changes to UFT members' healthcare without Delegate Assembly approval”. The Unity Caucus amended the resolution by adding the following language:

RESOLVED, that, in order to further prevent changes to healthcare without a vote of the Delegate Assembly, the UFT will fight arduously to enact federal legislation that will protect against any diminishment of Medicare or Social Security benefits, and the UFT will convene a permanent, UFT Healthcare Task Force, with retired and in-service members of multiple caucuses to review all significant changes to healthcare and make recommendations to the Delegate Assembly.

This amendment strengthened the resolution by:

1. Adding a new action

2. Creating a new internal structure

3. Introducing a new review/recommendation step

4. Reinforcing the goal of the DA oversight

5. Reiterating the position against Medicare Advantage.

Finally, the "Monthly Town Halls with Leadership" and “school listening tours.” They say they'll hold "live, open town halls for real Q&A, not pre-screened talking points."

Now, does our current leadership hold monthly open town halls like that? Maybe not in that exact format. But to say there's no communication or way to talk to leaders? Come on. We always get emails from the union and President Mulgrew. We have the UFT website and publications. We have Borough and District Representatives, the staff members responsible for schools at the district and borough level, with direct access to the Chapter Leader.

Our Chapter Leaders are constantly in touch with the union. Union officers visit schools all the time – that's their job. They have been doing these "listening tours" for decades and have their fingers on the pulse of their division just by being responsive and making themselves available for school visits.

ABC talks about not pre-screening talking points. It is essential to maximize time when in a town hall with tens of thousands of members. With an audience that large, you are guaranteed to have 60-80% of members who will ask the same questions. This would waste valuable time. It’s not about hiding things; it’s about effective communication to a massive group. It’s ensuring that more members walk away feeling informed by allowing more questions to be asked.

Promising a specific format like "monthly live open town halls" sounds direct, but does it mean more communication than the many ways Unity leadership already communicates and is present in schools and meetings across the city? I'd argue the current multi-level approach reaches more members more effectively than relying on a few specific events.

So, when you look at these plans and specific promises – digital referendums, a ratification amendment, and monthly town halls – ask yourself: Are these fixing actual problems that don't have any solutions now? Or are they suggesting new ways of doing things that might not be better or more effective than the systems Unity has built and used for years?

ABC is trying to convince you that our union is broken and undemocratic and that only they can fix it with these simple steps in 100 days. The truth is the UFT already has democratic structures, ways for members to give input, a ratification process, and multiple channels for communication. Unity Caucus has experienced leadership, using and maintaining structures that this union was built upon to fight for us throughout our careers.

Don't let promises of instant change and claims that ignore our union's reality sway your vote. When casting your ballot, ask yourself the following three questions:

1. Which caucus understands how to work the system we have?

2. Which caucus has the experience doing the hard work within those structures?

3. Which caucus does not pretend they’re starting from scratch?

If you answered Unity to any of these questions…#VoteUnity

Check back next time, and we'll tackle the next few points in their plan.

Okay, we must admit, this UFT election has brought out a lot of messages, and frankly, some of them are confusing. You've seen the "A Better Contract" crew, "ABC," putting out their "First 100 Days" plan, making some very strong promises. I'm here because I think it's crucial we look at those promises with clear eyes and see if they match up with reality. As a long-time member, I want to walk you through their plan, point by point, using what I know about how our union actually functions. We need to understand if what they're selling is realistic change or just election talk that doesn't tell you the whole story.

Today, we will look at the first three slides

The first one talks about a "CONTRACT CAMPAIGN FOR 2027 BEGINS" and mentions the "First 100 Days" with pictures of their team.

Paying close attention, you see that they are missing a candidate for a full officer slate. They lack a VP of Non-DOE Members.

The second one says "The days of weak leadership and backroom deals end on Day 1" and promises "immediate action" to rebuild our strength.

And the third one zeroes in on "END BACKROOM DEALS - OPEN & DEMOCRATIC UNION GOVERNANCE," specifically calling out our Executive Board and Delegate Assembly, saying they'll "End Unity Caucus' rubber-stamp control" and make members, not leaders, set the agenda.

Now, let's think about this, member to member.

First, they're making the 2027 contract, a really big deal in their campaign right now. And yes, getting a strong contract is always a top priority for all of us!

What they are doing is using that contract as a goal – a good contract that's still more than two years away – as a main reason to get your vote in this election. Think about it: promising a great contract down the road is appealing, right? But this is an election promise, and we all know that election promises can change once the votes are counted, no matter who wins. Look at Capital Hill and the White House. The real task of negotiating that contract comes well after this current election, and it's a complex job that requires experience and steady leadership.

Speaking of leadership, you know that our union has been led by the Unity Caucus for decades. It's been a consistent leadership that members have voted for election after election, trusting Unity to handle the day-to-day work of the union and the big fights, like grievances, welfare fund, etc. Unity has been here, doing this work, through the union's established processes.

I think Norm Scott says it all the time, “Watch what they do, not what they say.” I’m here to tell you that you need to do both with ABC. Specifically, you need to watch everything they say in this 100 days plan. Line by line!

Pay close attention to how they talk about things changing instantly. "End... backroom deals end on Day 1," they claim. "Immediately take action." They call it "The First 100 Days," like everything will be different right after the election. But running a union as large and complex as the UFT isn't like starting a new job where you can just change everything overnight. There are established ways of doing things, important relationships with the city and the DOE, and procedures that have to be followed. Real change in a big organization like ours takes time, careful planning, and consistent effort. Promising instant results like that sounds good on a flyer, but it's not realistic about how much effort and time it takes to run our union and fight for our rights.

Third, let's talk about their claims about our union's democracy and transparency. They say they'll fix the Executive Board and Delegate Assembly and end "rubber-stamp control," making it sound like there's no real member voice now. But that's just not telling the whole story of how our union operates.

We have a Delegate Assembly. We have an Executive Board. These are the places where elected representatives within our membership discuss issues, and vote on important decisions and policies. Members can and do submit resolutions individually, or work on them with bipartisan support. There are three entry points for a resolution into discussion. Either Adcom, Executive Board, or the Delegate Assembly. These structures for debate, for member input through resolutions, and for making decisions are already in place, and they are active.

Now, are these meetings always perfect? No. Do debates sometimes feel constrained? Yes. Do resolutions always pass exactly as written? Maybe not to everyone's satisfaction, and members definitely have the right to voice those frustrations. But saying there is no democracy, no way for members to introduce ideas, and that everything is just a "rubber stamp" completely ignores the existence and function of the processes which are used regularly.

The reality is, in any democratic body, the majority gets to guide the discussion and make the final decisions. Once again it’s a very strong resemblance to Capitol Hill. When Unity Chapter Leaders, Delegates, and other representatives are elected to represent their school and the UFT Executive Board is made up of majority Unity Caucus, then DA and EB will be Unity Heavy and that's how decisions are made within our union's established democratic system.

The members in Unity Caucus who are doing the work, believe in these structures. They work their resolutions in through one of the three entry points because that's where our union's decisions are made democratically. Proving that the processes in place are followed.

Unity members have been doing this work, using these established pathways, building our union's strength step by step over the years.

So, when you look at what "A Better Contract" is promising in these first few slides – using a future contract to boost votes now, promising instant changes on "Day 1," and claiming our union lacks basic democratic structures – just remember:

1. How our union actually works?

2. Who has the experience of leading within our democratic framework?

3. Who has the established processes?

4. And who is committed to continuing the work through those channels, fighting for our members effectively and steadily, not with unrealistic promises of overnight fixes?

Don't let the confusing messages distract from the reality of who has the experience and the plan to keep our union strong using the structures that are already in place.

Check back in tomorrow, and we'll look at some more points from their plan.