Tough Times

Bowie's dead, Cuomo's off the hook for Moreland tampering, the Supreme Court is set to destroy public sector unions and Rupert Murdoch is getting married to Jerry Hall.

Tough times indeed.

AFT Leaders Say, You Don't Like The Hillary Clinton Endorsement, Too Bad (UPDATED)

UPDATED - 8:50 AM: Megan Moskop, the teacher with whom Leo was engaging, writes to say that Leo was talking about the caucus structure within the union, not the union itself. 

If so, he wasn't doing a very good job of it because it reads as if he was talking about the union as a whole, not the caucuses within.

No matter what Leo was talking about (and given Leo's convolutions, it's often hard to know), the dismissive attitude, the scorn for member concerns and the refusal to hear anybody else's critiques remains, as does the looming issue of what happens if the Supreme Court rules against unions in Friedrichs next year.

If the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership does not make a course correction in how it deals with members concerns and criticism, they will find fewer and fewer members as time goes in.

That would be an awful thing to have happen, but it doesn't seem the AFT leadership is too worried because they continue to treat the rank and file like serfs to be ruled from above.

Original Post:

AFT Leaders Say, You Don't Like The Hillary Endorsement, You're Free To Leave The Union 

A functionary of the American Federation of Teachers explains how AFT members have no right to public dissent of  AFT leadership decisions and if they don't like what the AFT leadership did by endorsing Hillary Clinton for president 16 months out, they're free to leave the union:

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion decision making becuz everyone goes & does what they want regardless. In democracy you respect the

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion democratic decision and abide by it. If you can't abide by it, then you always have right to leave

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion and join a different organization or not be part of any organization.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

That's Leo Casey, Randi Weingarten's long-time propaganda guy, telling AFT member Megan Moskop why she has no right to complain about the "democratic decision" reached by the autocratic leadership of the American Federation of Teachers, with its "executive board" controlled by AFT President Randi Weingarten voting "democratically" for the endorsement of Hillary Clinton after the union used Hillary Clinton's pollsters to poll a little over a thousand AFT members and use this as justification for the endorsement 16 months out from the election.

It's interesting that Leo Casey would suggest AFT members who don't like the AFT leadership's decision on the Clinton endorsement leave the union, because that's exactly the thing that might happen next year if the Supreme Court rules in the Friedrichs case that teachers cannot be compelled to pay union dues and have those dues used for lobbying or other business they do not agree with.

If you go back through Perdido Street School blog here, you'll see various commenters talk about wanting to leave the union, decertify the union, start their own union and/or otherwise hope for RICO charges for the current union leadership because they feel disenfranchised by the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership.

The big complaint for many AFT/UFT/NYSUT members is that union leaders do not listen to concerns of the rank and file, that they make top-down decisions and attack anybody who disagrees with them.

The Hillary Clinton endorsement is just the latest "Hey, you don't like what we do? Too @#$%ing bad!" response from the AFT leadership, with the cranky Leo Casey dishing out the smack down.

You would think given the enormity of the Friedrichs case, the union leadership would be more amenable to member concerns, that they would be thinking, "Hey, we could lose the right to compel members dues, so maybe, you know, we should start to work with members instead of work on them...maybe we should be more member-responsive instead of member-dismissive when the rank and file raise concerns."

You would think they might react that way, given Friedrichs, but you'd be wrong - instead it's just the usual defensive response, part condescension/part insult, that if you don't like what the AFT does, leave it, if you don't abide by the top-down imposed "democratic" decision from the AFT leadership, you're an anarchist.

The next insult - usually the last one the AFT leadership and/or their functionaries level in fights with members - is that you're anti-union if you don't support the leadership's decisions, and you can bet that's coming next from Leo and Company (I know because I've had that leveled at me on Twitter when I've criticized AFT/UFT/NYSUT strategy or decisions in the past.)

Casey may just get his wish next year after the Supreme Court ruling on Friedrichs if teachers are given the choice to pay union dues or not, and while I think it would be a mistake for teachers to stop paying dues to the AFT because the union leaders run the union for themselves only and are completely unresponsive to members' concerns or criticisms, you can see why some might do it.

Who wants to pay the salary, perks and second pensions of autocrats like Weingarten and Casey as they make top-down decisions that members consider harmful to their interests, then dismiss member concerns with insults and "Hey, you don't like it, leave!" retorts?

I was hoping that the AFT leadership would start to become more responsive to members with the Freidrichs case looming next year, that they would feel the need to engage with members over concerns and criticism rather than just do the usual insult/dismissal game, but it seems, given the Casey pushback to the Clinton endorsement decision, this will not be the case.

Instead we are being told if AFT members don't like the decision, they can leave the union and go elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see how many take Leo up on his invitation if the Supreme Court rules against unions in the Freidrichs case.

I'm betting many will.

And then AFT leaders will call these people names, claim they are anti-union or whatever, instead of thinking, "You know, maybe we can't run the union the way we always have anymore, maybe we actually, you know, have to listen to members instead of just dismiss them and do what we want..."

It is a real shame that the AFT leadership does not seem to see the disaster that is coming down the pike if they continue to run the union for their own benefit, ambition and aggrandizement.

As I wrote earlier, I won't stop paying dues nor take Leo up on his invitation to leave the AFT but given the disenfrachisement many rank and filers feel toward the union, I would bet many others do.

The AFT leadership believes itself untouchable, what with the rigged election processes wherein loyalty oaths and dished out perks and privileges are used to keep the union functionaries in lie and continue to support the leadership.

But see how well that works if and when the rank and file are given a choice to pay dues or not.

Labor Dodges Bullet In Supreme Court - For Now

From Politico:

The Supreme Court Monday sided with home health care workers in Illinois who want out of a union but stopped short of a sweeping decision that could have decimated union finances and membership.

In Harris v. Quinn, the justices declined to reverse a precedent, set in 1977, that held states could compel public-sector employees to pay union dues. Laws mandating such payments exist in 26 states and will remain intact, in a major victory for organized labor.

 Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a 5-4 majority, called the precedent "questionable," signaling an openness to revisit it in future cases.

Given the impact of Vergara on teacher tenure, a Supreme Court ruling reversing the 1977 precedent that allows states to compel public sector workers to pay union dues would have had a devastating effect on the AFT and NEA.

A bullet dodged - for now.

As Politico notes, Alito left open the possibility of revisiting the precedent in future cases.

The Associated Press has more:

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks — and bank accounts — in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

But the ruling was limited to this particular segment of workers — not private sector unions — and it stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers are different from other types of government employees because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees.

The case involves about 26,000 Illinois workers who provide home care for disabled people and are paid with Medicaid funds administered by the state. In 2003, the state passed a measure deeming the workers state employees eligible for collective bargaining.

A majority of the workers then selected a union to negotiate with the state to increase wages, improve health benefits and set up training programs. Those workers who chose not to join the union had to pay proportional “fair share” fees to cover collective bargaining and other administration costs.


A group of workers led by Pamela Harris — a home health aide who cares for her disabled son at home — filed a lawsuit arguing the fees violate the First Amendment. Backed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the workers said it wasn’t fair to make someone pay fees to a group that takes positions the fee-payer disagrees with.

The workers argue they are not government employees capable of being unionized in the traditional sense. They are different, they say, because they work in people’s homes, not on government property, and are not supervised by other state employees.

The workers had urged the justices to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court decision which held that public employees who choose not to join a union can still be required to pay representation fees, as long as those fees don’t go toward political purposes. They say the union is not merely seeking higher wages, but making a political push for expansion of Medicaid payments.

Alito said the court was not overturning that case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. That case, he said, is confined “to full-fledged state employees.”

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the four liberal justices. Kagan said the majority’s decision to leave the older case in place is “cause for satisfaction, though hardly applause.”

Given the bomb that was Vergara a few weeks back, I'll take the majority's decision to leave the older case precedent in place as a minor victory.

Alas, it will probably be short-lived.

 No doubt Alito, who specializes in union-busting, is looking for a better case to sweep away the old precedent.

Mayor Moneybags Prepares To Run For President

Mayor Moneybags is worth about $15 billion dollars.

He had a third of that fortune invested in his pal Steven Rattner's crooked private equity fund known as Quadrangle Asset Management.

Now he's moving it:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York has decided to remove his fortune from a private equity firm founded by his longtime friend, 10 months after that firm became embroiled in a scandal involving the state pension fund.

The mayor is shifting about $5 billion from Quadrangle into a new investment firm devoted solely to his interest and that of his charitable foundation. About a dozen employees of Quadrangle will join the new enterprise, suggesting the move is not being driven by a desire to change investment strategy. According to a letter that Quadrangle sent to its investors on Friday, the mayor was seeking privacy and flexibility for his investments.

In assets, Quadrangle will shrink by more than half, leaving the firm only private equity investments in the media and telecommunications industries. The setback caps a year of struggle for Quadrangle, after Steven Rattner — the founder who is Mr. Bloomberg’s friend — departed last year to run the Obama administration’s automobile task force. Mr. Rattner was linked to the New York pension fund investigation within months of that appointment and stepped down from his government role last summer.

No charges have been brought against the firm or Mr. Rattner by the attorney general of New York or the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are both investigating Quadrangle’s past dealings with the New York state pension fund.

The Times speculates that Bloomberg is moving the money so that he can use it in 2012, when he may run for president and drop more than $1 billion of his own money on the race.

Leaving aside whether people who were in charge of Bloomberg's money were involved in the pension scandal, I think the important part of the story is that Bloomberg is running for president in 2012.

You can see how he's setting it all up.

He and Obama were once buddies - now he's been criticizing him over the terrorist trials to be held in NYC, over his bank plan, and over the health care reform business.

He's got his buddies in the press writing lots of stories or talking on the TV about Washington gridlock and partisanship that has government paralyzed (the latest was Bobo Brooks on Meet The Press last week saying he know sees a third party candidate as a viable option in 2012 because the two party system is so dysfunctional.)

He hired Howard Wolfson, former p.r. hack for Hillary Clinton in the '08 race, after he won re-election for a third term as mayor. Wolfson wasn't brought in to jive the press about what the mayor is currently doing at City Hall. Wolfson was brought in to jive the press about what the wonderful non-partisan technocrat Bloomberg can do to solve Washington partisan gridlock.

And now he's moving his money from his crooked pal Rattner's fund so that he can use it for the 2012 run.

The scary thing is, with the Supreme Court allowing corporations to spend as freely as they want on elections (and presumably they just might want to drop lots of money to elect quite literally one of their own) and with Bloomberg's willingness to drop over a billion on this race, it is just possible he could win.

Not likely, of course. But when you're talking that kind of money being leveraged to buy the White House, who the hell knows what'll happen.