Proposal:

MORE’s priority over the next 6-12 months is to argue for a militant action plan for
a good contract. The plan should include demonstrations, job actions, and
preparation for a strike. This should consist of literature arguing for the strategy
that cites the WV strike as an example of what a union should do, proposals to the
DA and EB, and, where possible, our own actions. MORE has connections with
several parent and community organizations who have grown frustrated with
conditions in the schools, over-testing, and educational injustice. Our caucus should
seek to work with them in a united front for the rights of our members and for our
students. The terms of the next contract will affect the daily lives of rank and file
members more than anything else will. Therefore, preparations for an effective
campaign of union militancy, including the demand for strike preparation, should
take priority over preparations for the 2019 UFT elections.

Rationale:

The context of labor relations in the United States is changing under our feet. The
Supreme Court will likely declare agency fees collection unconstitutional,
undermining the organizational strength of public sector unions, especially in New
York state. The union’s response thus far has been a campaign of door knocking and
school based organizing to encourage members to commit to remaining union
members after the Supreme Court releases its decision. On the bright side part of
the union’s message has been to encourage members to see themselves as “the
union” and to get more actively involved. On the other hand the union’s principal
goal is simply to maintain as many dues payers as possible. UNITY is not trying to
build a more dynamic union that can engage in risky battles with the employer.
Consequently, the UFT leadership has not yet been willing to organize the kind of
contract fight that might engage members and inspire them with a meaningful sense
that the union is “us” and that “we” are taking action together.

Thus far the UFT leadership has conducted contract bargaining in traditional ways –
through secret meetings, and behind-closed-doors negotiations. As a result it has
not built the kind of dynamic power base that could force the DeBlasio
administration to agree to favorable contract terms. The Mulgrew team has not even
been able to get DeBlasio to settle an agreement for paid parental leave, something
the mayor claims to support. While it is likely the UFT leadership will be able to
reach a contract deal with the mayor within the next year, it will probably involve
minimal raises, no fundamental changes in working conditions, and possibly some
givebacks. The contract may pass a ratification vote, but it won’t inspire anyone
with a vision of what an active union can accomplish.

The West Virginia teachers have shown us that there is a different model of
unionism. Rank and file teachers organized and forced their leaders to take a stand
they had no initial intention of taking. Teachers built support from parents by
making sure that kids were fed during the strike. And they inspired public
admiration by showing – through actions, not words – that there was an alternative
to politics as usual. Quite importantly, they broke the law. Teachers in West Virginia
do not have the legal right to strike. They established that right by shutting every
school in the state and making the law unenforceable. Our argument should be that
the way to break the back of the Taylor law is to violate it by planning for an
effective strike. Prior to 1937 working people did not have the right to form unions
or to strike. They won those rights by forming unions and going on strike.

We do not have enough of a rank and file network to push past our union leadership
and organize a strike. We can, however, build that base by arguing for an alternative
vision of contract bargaining and, wherever possible, organizing actions that
prefigure strike preparations. Even as we understand the precarious state of our
union at the hour of the Janus decision, we are compelled to move in these
directions to force our union to be more responsive to our needs and the needs of
our student and parent communities.

Concrete steps:

1. MORE should issue literature advocating a militant contract strategy that

would involve as many members as possible in protests and job actions. The
stated purpose of such a militant strategy should be to lay the groundwork
for a credible strike threat.

2. MORE should develop proposals for the UFT Delegate Assembly and the UFT
Executive Board which call on the union to engage in specific mobilization
efforts to raise membership consciousness and build toward larger actions,
working with and training members to develop organizational capacity.

3. MORE should develop working relationships with parent and community

organizations to develop statements and actions which unite the goals of
workplace justice for union members, educational justice for students, and
social justice for communities. To build support for direct actions, this work
should include joint statements and actions in order to build solidarity with
stakeholders outside the UFT. In particular, we should collaborate with
anti-racist Black and Latinx parent, student, and community groups to
integrate racial justice into the contract strategy.

4. The contract fight takes priority over all concerns about the 2019 UFT
elections. Given our limited forces we should begin our work on the contract
campaign as soon as possible and delay decisions about whether or how to
run in the UFT elections. If we decide that election campaigning will interfere
with our ability to sustain a contract fight we should be open to the
possibility of skipping the next union elections. If we decide to run, MORE’s
strategy of a militant contract fight, including strike preparation, should be at
 the center of our campaign message. Should MORE run in the 2019 elections,
candidates chosen by the caucus must agree to run on the caucus' program of
how to conduct a militant contract fight.

Signed: