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.

Gallup: Support For Unions Up, Young People Most Supportive

Interesting findings:

After falling to an all-time low in 2009, Americans’ support for labor unions has been inching up, according to Gallup, the consulting and polling company.

“Americans’ approval of labor unions has jumped five percentage points to 58 percent over the past year, and is now at its highest point since 2008, when 59 percent approved,” a report issued by Gallup said.

The low, at 48 percent, was in 2009.

“Perhaps most positive for the future of unions is the finding that young adults, those aged 18 to 34, are the most supportive of all age groups,” Gallup said.

Support for unions was at 55% when Gallup asked the question in 1979, so 58% support, bouncing back from the 2008 low, brings support back to recent historical levels.

But here's some cause for optimism in the future:

66% of people aged 18-34 approve of unions, while 53% aged 35-54 approve of unions and 58% of those aged 55 or older approve of unions.

It looks like younger people, seeing how badly they're getting screwed by globalization and other economic forces that are squeezing them on all ends are more open to unions than their elders - especially their Gen X elders.

Where Do Education Progressives Go Politically?

The following is a guest post by Harris Lirtzman, former Director of Risk Management for the New York City Retirement Systems in the NYC Comptroller's Office from 1996-2002 and former Deputy State Comptroller for Administration from 2003-2007.

The fight against the federal testing and accountability regime aligns education progressives on the "local control" v. "federal control” axis in confounding ways. We oppose federal control because reformistas learned twenty years ago that if they were to move their program forward they had to end the long period of "exceptionalism" in American education, which left education in the hands of local school boards minimally overseen by state education departments but watched closely by teacher unions. Education has now been brought within the full scope of state and national politics--the "federalization" of education serves to make the education reform program possible by moving it to a venue where the full force of money and a new set of political alliances can sidestep parents and teachers.

The mainstream civil rights groups have always distrusted "localism" because in most parts of the country the only way that children of color could reliably be educated was by federal intervention, primarily Title 1. We now have a federalized education reform program supported by its natural ally, the mainstream civil rights groups.

The unfortunate result of all this is that the reform focus on de-professionalizing teaching and breaking teachers' unions requires teachers to make a Faustian bargain: we work together now with Republicans across the country to return control of education to states and localities where we stand a chance of preserving our profession and protecting our unions.

This strategy--and the short-term gains that result from it--is a very high-risk proposition for education progressives. We have seen what happens when Republicans gain unified control in the states—the same place where education progressives assume we will find some relief from pernicious “federal control.” Education progressives who have been so willing to work hand-in-hand with Republicans at the federal level will come deeply to regret the short term gains that the coalition activity has produced.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that “local control” of education policy will make anything better for teachers beyond momentary relief from the harshest aspects of the test and accountability regime. Anyone who has watched what has been going on in Democratic New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts ought not to believe that “local control” of education by Republicans in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana will provide any long-term gain for teachers of any kind, progressive or otherwise.

A federal government under the unified control of the Republican Party—and that will happen one day soon--will result in the direct funding of charter schools and vouchers, the decimation of Title 1 and Title 9 programs, the appointment of judges who will eviscerate any remaining union protections and the dismantling of the regulatory process that protects children with disabilities.
So where do education progressives go, at least politically?

Nowhere.

Many education progressives have defined "education progressivism" as a single-issue battle and have not done a very good job finding allies anywhere outside our own small world--because, frankly, most people are not sufficiently concerned about the education reform program to have been turned into "single-issue" partisans (see, here). We progressives want education policy purity from our political parties and representatives but we are the only part of the American progressive movement that has made this convenient bargain with the Republican Party.

The radicalization of the Republican Party since 2004 has forced the advocates for every other political cause that education progressives also support--choice, environmentalism, health care, labor law, a sane foreign policy, civil rights, LGBT rights--to align with the Democratic Party.

Education progressives can support a candidate in the Democratic primaries who is closer to our position than other candidates may be but in the end we will either support the Democratic nominee, who will most surely not be an education progressive, or will join a third party knowing that the history of third parties in the United States is an abysmal one for progressives except for the brief period between 1895 and 1915.

The Democratic Party knows that most teachers will ultimately support the Democratic nominee regardless what his or her education policy is because most teachers are not "single-issue" voters, though they have a keen sense of their own interests. They vote for candidates who are acceptable to them for the same reason that most progressive Democrats do: because they know that the Democratic Party, corporatized and feckless though it may be, stands as the only thing between the full range of "progressive" things that teachers care about and disaster. With time there may come a point when a majority of Americans support economic progressivism sufficiently to rebuild the Democratic Party in a way that education progressives can support with open hearts.

"Single-issue" teachers who will go Green or Libertarian will preserve their educationally progressive principles and will lose. It is possible, though not likely, that with the time, energy and money now used to support the battles that education progressives fight to preserve public schools and to democratize their unions they may be able to infuse a third party with sufficient resources to win a national, or even state, election.

Education progressives who have an understanding of practical politics in this country will recognize what most progressives learned in 2000. Any education progressive who says now that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties has not been watching what's been happening in this country since 2000 very closely.

The Republican Party, with whom teachers have aligned themselves on education policy issues, caught rabies in 2004. The Republican Party, wherever it has been able to, pursues an agenda that means death for every other thing that educational progressives support. Any educational progressive who is not a “single issue” radical will support the Democratic Party whoever its nominee is and abandon the insanity of the Republican alliance that will have returned education policy to the states, where progressive education policy goes to die its own death, in return for momentary relief from federal testing and accountability mandates.

Unfortunately, the story does not end will for educational progressives. Except in small parts of the country where individual Democrats care enough about educational progressivism to make it an issue, educational reformers will be able to pursue the same goals they have for the last two decades.
If the cost of political engagement for educational progressives is that we are forced in the end to make a “Sophie’s Choice” between our own progressivism and the fuller range of progressivisms that we support then I say let us leave politics behind.

Let us reform our unions, if we can. Let us fight to protect teachers who are able to survive the education reform movement in their workplaces. Let us preserve collective bargaining and dues check-off. Let us develop a robust range of mutual support capabilities to preserve teaching as a proud profession. Let us think about new strategies that the weakness of our political position demands—particularly building strong and vital alliances with other parts of the progressive movement, especially with people of color—and let us focus on the long, hard, unglamorous work that might turn the vast majority of apolitical teachers into education progressives.

Let us think about almost anything except how "educational progressives" can find a home in or be saved by the American political process.

Because we can’t and because we won’t.

NYSUT, Other Unions Already Endorsed Andrew Cuomo In Spring

Jimmy Vielkind at Capital NY:

ALBANY—In one sense, the AFL-CIO's decision Monday not to endorse Andrew Cuomo's re-election is bigger than it looks. That's because the union's decision, sources say, was partially the result of heavy lobbying from other labor groups that are snubbing or actively opposing the governor.

The union's decision is somewhat smaller in terms of the likelihood that it will have a meaningful impact on the election, though.

You would think it's a no-brainer for the largest labor organization in the state to back a Democratic governor who, despite frustrating actions, has worked to create jobs for its members. All signs—polls, resources—point toward him winning in November, show his principal opponents in the primary and general elections are widely unknown and, in the case of the Republican, Rob Astorino, far less eager to toe the labor line.

The AFL-CIO's decision to stay on the sidelines anyway will be embarrassing to Cuomo and fuel buzz about his challenger Zephyr Teachout. But the governor has enough money and infrastructural support (including the backing of other unions) not to have to rely on the group.

“I find it hard to imagine that anything the unions are doing is ultimately going to make a big difference in a primary,” said Joe Mercurio, a Democratic political consultant. “This is going to be a turnout-driven election, and he has way more resources than she does to generate turnout.”

As I posted yesterday, the unions did their "endorsement" work for Cuomo when they threatened the Working Families Party with "dissolution" if WFP endorsed Zephyr Teachout and helped her launch a third party bid against Cuomo in the general election.

Polls show Cuomo has run away with a two man race but has a much closer margin of victory in a three-man race - a margin that could close considerably before Election Day.

Vielkind says the unions are looking to rebuke Cuomo for his policies but not defeat him.

I would argue that they aren't even looking to rebuke him - at least not the union leaders.

I would argue that they are playing realpolitik here, knowing that their rank-and-file members are pissed at Cuomo and there would be a lot of rumblings if any of the unions endorsed Cuomo.

I would argue that Andrew Cuomo knows this too and the deal was made between the union leaders (except for PEF, which endorsed Teachout) and Cuomo that the "endorsement" work would be done in the spring during the WFP convention when it mattered most.

Had WFP put Teachout on the ballot to run against Cuomo in the general election, he would have had a real race on his hands.

But the union leaders ensured this didn't happen and Andrew Cuomo knows that was their handiwork.

There is no rebuke from union leaders for Cuomo - except from PEF, which endorsed Teachout.

The other union leaders, their endorsements came back in spring.

Here's Comes The "Health Care Savings" From City Workers

From the NY Times:

When Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his first labor agreements with New York City unions this spring, he was sharply criticized for granting long-awaited wage increases in exchange for promises of unspecified though sizable savings on health care expenses.

Now, some of the specifics are coming into focus: City officials and union leaders say they hope to push municipal workers to use walk-in clinics more and emergency rooms less, order generic drugs more often than brand-name ones, and buy them through the mail rather than at retail pharmacies to achieve bulk discounts.

The city hopes the unions will agree to steer workers to use centralized, cheaper centers for blood tests, X-rays or M.R.I.s, rather than having those tests performed in doctors’ offices or at costly physician-owned facilities. Patients who resist could face higher copayments, while savings would be passed on to the city in lower premiums.

The cost-cutting comes with high stakes: If the city and unions are unable to save a total of $3.4 billion on health care by 2018, a mediator will be empowered to order increases in workers’ premiums to cover the shortfall, officials said.

As an added inducement, if the unions help the city exceed that goal, the first $365 million in additional savings would be distributed as lump-sum bonuses to workers, officials said. Any savings beyond that would be split evenly between the city and its employees.

The Times article notes that de Blasio did not push for city workers to pay a percentage of salary toward health care contributions - unlike in some of the other union deals made lately:

Missing from the labor contracts with teachers and other city workers that were announced beginning in May was any requirement for union members to begin contributing toward their health insurance premiums. That prompted some critics to say Mr. de Blasio was not being tough enough at the bargaining table.

Earlier this month, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the unions representing 5,400 Long Island Rail Road employees agreed that those workers would begin paying 2 percent of their wages toward their health coverage.

But Mr. Linn said the city would gain far more by trimming health costs than by getting municipal workers to pay the same 2 percent of their wages toward their health premiums. That contribution, he said, would translate into $400 million a year.

“Look at it this way,” Mr. Linn said in an interview. “Isn’t it better to achieve savings so an employer pays $16,000 toward health coverage per worker, than to have a total cost of $20,000 per worker, with the employee contributing $2,000 of that?”

We'll see if the approach the unions took with de Blasio works or not.

The worst case scenario would be to make these cost-cutting moves, then still get stuck in 2018 with paying a percentage of salary to health care anyway.

One thing I know is, once you start paying a percentage of salary toward health care contributions, that contribution goes up every contract.

I think the LIRR union leaders were fools to have given what they gave in their contract - they ate their young on salary progression and pension payments AND they agreed to have workers pay 2% of salary toward health care.

You can bet that 2% of salary for health care will go up next contract - and every contract after that.

The municipal contracts give the city an opening to make workers pay a percentage of salary toward health care - but only if the $3.4 billion in "health care savings" isn't hit by 2018.

The Times reports the "savings" calculation will work this way:

Labor leaders and city officials began the talks on health care cuts in mid-July and are to meet again in early August, with the goal of agreeing on $400 million in health savings this year, $700 million next year, $1 billion the year after that and $1.3 billion in fiscal 2018, for a total of $3.4 billion.

Finally de Blasio labor guy Bob Linn tells the Times the de Blasio approach to health care savings is better than getting workers to pay into health care:

Mr. Linn said some critics of the administration seemed preoccupied with getting employees to pay toward their health insurance premiums, while underestimating workers’ ability to embrace cost-saving, innovative approaches to their health care.

Before joining Mr. de Blasio’s administration, Mr. Linn was a consultant who helped restructure health care services for 1199 S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East, the giant health care union. He said he was using that deal, which includes central blood and imaging labs, generic drugs and mail-in prescriptions, as a model.

The city’s new agreements create strong incentives for the unions to find savings.

If the prospect of lump-sum bonuses does not do the trick and the unions fail to agree to steps that reach the savings target, then the mediator in the contract dispute with the teachers, Martin F. Scheinman, is to step in and order cost-saving measures to reach that goal. Those measures could include requiring the workers to contribute to their premiums for the first time.

Carol Kellermann, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, said the potential bonuses could be an important catalyst. 

“We haven’t tried it before,” Ms. Kellermann said. “I think it will motivate the managers of the unions. There’s nothing like getting your members a bonus.”

Mr. Linn said many New Yorkers underestimated the potential benefits of collective bargaining.

“Our approach is, how do you get people to work together and find common interests to achieve savings?” he said. 

“We’ve created a system in which labor and management have a joint incentive to achieve health savings.”

It behooves us to watch closely and see what happens here.

Was This The Best The LIRR Unions Could Do?

Given the leverage the LIRR unions had in their negotiations, it being an election year and all, if these reports are accurate, this is a pretty bad deal:

"Under terms of the deal, current LIRR employees will receive a 17 percent wage increase over six-and-a-half years. The union had been seeking six years, and the MTA seven. To pay for the additional salary expenses, all employees will for the first time contribute to their health insurance, the governor said. New employees will have a different wage progression and retirement contributions. The agreement doesn’t include fare increases, Cuomo said."

If what Cuomo said is what's actually in the deal, then the union leadership conceded on health care contributions and they ate their young on wage progression and retirement contributions.

Those concessions sure do diminish the 17% wage increase over 6.5 years.

I've written this over and over, but I'm going to do so once again:

Making that first-time concession on health care contributions is ALWAYS a loss.

Once you open the door to ANY contributions to health care, you hit the slippery slope of concessions on health care/increased payments from employees EVERY time the contract comes up for re-negotiation.

They couldn't do better than this in an election year with a strike deadline looming?

What Are The Chances Of An LIRR Strike Happening?

Given what happened to Mario Cuomo over an LIRR strike in 1994, the chances that Andrew Cuomo let's this one happen this year are pretty small.

My sense is, the governor will jettison into the negotiations and force a settlement before the strike starts.

What say you out there?

Does the strike go off?

Or does Cuomo jettison in as "savior"?

And if you think Cuomo does jettison in and force a solution, which side do you think comes out the "winner"?

Cuomo Is Full Of Shit

On Monday, Sheriff Andy Cuomo said this about the looming possibility of an LIRR strike because the MTA and the LIRR unions can't come to a contract agreement:

“It’s actually Congress that can end a strike and impose a settlement one way or the other,” he said. “So right now it seems that Congress is pivotal to what happens here, and from what I read in the newspapers it’s going to depend on what Congress intends to do….”

Cuomo added that “Congress can order a settlement, Congress can order mediation, Congress can order arbitration, Congress can do almost whatever they want, because they are in control of the resolution of the strike.”

Here was Cuomo today:

Cuomo thanks NY members of Congress "for making it abundantly clear" Congress won't avert LIRR strike, as per "false belief" by unions.
— Liz Benjamin (@CTLizB) July 9, 2014

False belief put forward by the unions that Congress could help avert the LIRR strike?

The guy who put forward the false belief that Congress could help avert the LIRR strike was Sheriff Andy Cuomo himself.

Stop blaming the unions, Sheriff Andy.

You were the guy who pushed that meme.

MTA Looks To Get Congress Involved In MTA/LIRR Unions Dispute

From the NY Post:

The MTA’s negotiations with unions representing LIRR workers broke down Tuesday afternoon, 12 days before hundreds of thousands of Long Islanders would be left stranded by a strike.

With the walkout looming, MTA Chairman Thomas Prendergast penned a letter to US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner asking them to say what role Congress would play if 5,400 workers walk off the job on July 20.

And from Newsday:

LIRR union officials said they were willing to continue talking Tuesday with Metropolitan Transportation Authority negotiators before the National Mediation Board until a deal was made. However, after meeting less than four hours in Manhattan, MTA negotiators said it became clear a settlement could not be reached.

"Nothing is going to happen at the table here clearly, based on what happened today, and that's why we're going to Congress," MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg said after the talks.

You can see the strategy from the MTA and Governor Cuomo here - try and have Congress force an end to any job action by the LIRR unions, thus taking away a key weapon in the LIRR unions arsenal.

So far, Congress doesn't sound like its willing to act:

Before the negotiation, Prendergast began making plans to go to Washington, D.C., to meet with congressional members and "seek clarification on what role Congress intends to play in the event" of a July 20 strike, according to a letter he sent to federal lawmakers.

The letter was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

An aide to McConnell said yesterday that he saw the letter but did not know of any request for a meeting from Prendergast. Reid's office had no comment, and House leaders could not be reached for comment.

...

Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) Tuesday encouraged the MTA to keep talking to the unions, not federal lawmakers.

"These guys should be spending more time at the table than trying to position themselves as far as Congress is concerned," said King, who heard from Prendergast Monday about arranging a meeting.
King, who will host the MTA chairman Wednesday along with Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan), said he and other members of New York's delegation won't likely tell both sides what they intend to do or give them "an out" from negotiating a settlement.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-Huntington) agreed that depending on congressional action is the wrong course, "considering that there's no promise that the House Republican Majority will take up the issue at all."

Cuomo tried to wash his hands of the matter earlier in the week, claiming this was a federal matter for Congress to deal with.

Cuomo's simply trying to displace responsibility here so that he doesn't have to own a strike if it happens - especially since a strike would come a few months before Election Day and might leave him with some political damage.

But Congress, at least so far, doesn't sound like they're going to help Sheriff Andy or the MTA out.

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.

LIRR Unions Do Not Take Kindly To Newest MTA Offer, Negotiation Strategy

From the Daily News:

The MTA’s decision to publicize its newest contract offer to LIRR workers — who are threatening a strike next month — has union leaders considering whether to ditch a new round of negotiations set for Friday.

Anthony Simon, a spokesman for a coalition of Long Island Rail Road unions, which can legally strike as early as July 20, faulted the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for releasing to the media details of its proposal before the planned talks.

“Instead of sitting down with the only people who can make a deal, the MTA chose the route of cheap political grandstanding,” Simon said. “It’s painfully clear the MTA is not serious about negotiating a settlement.”

The MTA’s offer — 17% in raises over seven years — was publicized Tuesday, and represented an improvement over the previous proposal of 11% in pay increases over six years plus work-rule changes.

In earlier negotiations, the MTA had asked the unions, which have been without a contract since 2010, to accept a pay freeze unless the cost of raises was covered completely by work-rule changes. “We’ve moved considerably,” MTA Chairman Tom Prendergast said after the authority’s board held its monthly meeting Wednesday.

...

The labor impasse persists despite two separate rounds of independent mediation from panels selected by the White House. Both panels recommended 17% in raises over six years.

...

The MTA’s proposal would eventually lead to savings, because it would require new hires to contribute more of their earnings for health care and pensions than current employees do.

Something to keep an eye on for three reasons:

1. The LIRR unions can legally strike

2. Governor Cuomo is not going to want a strike in July, a little over three and a half months before his re-election bid

3. Therefore the LIRR unions have considerable leverage in this fight, especially since both independent mediation panels that weighed in on the impasse recommended substantially higher raises than the MTA is offering

Consensus Is, Cuomo Has No Intention Of Fulfilling Any Deal With Working Families Party

From Times reporter Nick Confessore:

What does it mean that press corps instant consensus is Cuomo has no intention of genuinely trying to fulfill the emerging WFP deal?
— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) May 31, 2014

What it says is that the WFP officials, politicians and union leaders pushing this deal are corrupt and/or short-sighted, the WFP rank-and-file who accept it are naive, and Andrew Cuomo is once again exposed as a lying, finagling, backstabbing corporatist weasel.

UFT, Other Union Leaders Threaten Working Families Party Over Cuomo Endorsement

You knew the union leaders wouldn't allow for Working Families Party to endorse anybody over Sheriff Andy Cuomo.

With the WFP convention this weekend and many rank-and-file calling for the party to endorse Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout over Andrew Cuomo, the union leaders made their move today and threatened the party with dissolution:

When Working Families Party state committee members gather at their convention tomorrow, far more than the endorsement for governor will be at stake.

The very future of the labor-backed party will be on the line, and according to one labor source, the damage done by the disagreement over whether or not to back Gov. Andrew Cuomo again may very well be irreparable.

“Regardless of what happens now, the way the party has conducted itself has done lasting damage to relationships with key (union) affiliates,” the source said. “It’s unclear if the party will ever be the same.”

Union leaders were burning up the phone lines this morning, discussing whether the time had finally come to pull their support of the party they helped create and have financially sustained since 1998.

According to another labor source involved in these talks, a number of the largest and most significant unions – including 1199 SEIU, HTC, the laborers, RWDSU, and the UFT – were prepared to call it quits with the WFP, knowing that their withdrawal could very well lead to the party’s “collapse.”

The Teamsters and TWU were also involved in these discussions, which were far enough along to warrant talk of drafting of a joint statement, although one was never actually released.

Just another example of union leadership looking to negotiate the terms of exploitation with the powers that be.

I'm surprised by none of this - these union leaders are all crooks and corporate cronies, and while they sometimes talk a good game for their members, mostly they care about maintaining their own power and privilege.

That means doing business with corporatists like Andrew M. Cuomo no matter the cost for the working people of New York State.

What Comes After?

There's a lot of talk in schools and around the Internet about voting the UFT contract agreement down and forcing de Blasio to give teachers a better deal in a second agreement.

People say this will show the public that teachers are starting to stand up for themselves, they're not going to take getting humiliated or beaten up by the politicians or press anymore.

I have also heard how teachers voted a contract down in 1995 and got a better deal the second time around, so voting this contract down will mean a better deal.

I fear that there is some magical thinking going on among some of the "Vote No!" folks that all we have to do is send a message to the mayor, our union heads and the public that we want a better contract by voting this one down and we will, in the end, get one.

I'm a little concerned that we're expending an awful lot of energy and thought on why the contract should be voted down, how to get it voted down, but not nearly enough on the "What comes after...?" question.

There's a scene in The Godfather where Clemenza the capo is tutoring Michael Corleone on what to do after he shoots a crooked cop and gangster who set up his father, Vito, to be killed.

Michael is told to simply drop the gun, walk out to a waiting car and go off to Sicily while the rest of the family "goes to mattresses" and takes the heat.

Michael asks Clemenza how bad things are going to get after he murders the crooked cop and gangster.

Clemenza says "Pretty goddam bad. But that's all right. These things have got to happen every once in a while...every five years...ten...helps to get rid of the bad blood..."

People who are voting "no" have got to be ready for how goddamn bad things are going to get if and when the contract is voted down because it is going to get very rough afterwards and if we're not careful, the aftermath could do more harm to the cause of teachers than good.

The press will be brutal ("Greedy teachers vote down 18% contract, want more!!!") and de Blasio is going to be pissed that his "signature" contract and early first term accomplishment got voted down (and, perhaps, be less friendly toward teachers as a consequence.)

We had better be ready for this.

Let's take the press first - you know the coverage is going to be brutal if the contract is voted down. The Murdoch outlets are going to hammer teachers as greedy scum, the Daily News won't be far behind and Marcia Kramer and others will have plenty of pieces on the airwaves blasting teachers too.

The UFT leadership isn't the best at countering negative press coverage even when it's in their interest to do so - you can bet they're not going to do it if the contract they negotiated is voted down and teachers are getting hammered by the media for it.

So, what is the strategy post-vote for teachers to get their message out to the public about why we voted the contract down when the corporate-owned press is spewing out a "Greedy Teachers!" meme day and night to the public and the UFT leadership is doing nothing to counter it?

Do we think we can counter that "Greedy Teachers!" meme from the corporate press on our social media sites with tweets, Facebook posts and blog pieces?

Do we think we can counter that "Greedy Teachers!" meme by giving press conferences that are sparsely attended by media people and given little press coverage except for a Schoolbook post at WNYC and a mention on Gotham Charter Schools?

In Chicago, CTU was able to garner a lot of public support for their strike because they had an ongoing relationship with parents that they had built over time.

Also, the Chicago teachers were striking over issues that parents and students were affected by - class size, school closures, etc.

Here in NYC, the UFT has purposely run itself as a top-down union and there has been little outreach to parents and the public.

It is true that MORE is a little better at this than the leadership, but even there I wouldn't say there is a relationship with the public and parents where we can say a substantial portion of them will give us the benefit of the doubt in the face of mass smearing from the corporate press if and when we vote the contract down.

So, first point is, how do we counter the firestorm we will have in the media after the contract is voted down? What's the plan to get our points out to the public in the face of a hostile media and hostile UFT leadership?

Next point is, what happens to our relationship with de Blasio?

Currently we have a mayor who is mostly friendly and in sync with teachers - for the first time in a long time.

We could have had either Christine Quinn or Anthony Weiner at City Hall and I can tell you that both of those candidates planned few changes to the public school system from the Bloomberg Years.

De Blasio, for all his faults, is planning changes that I think will make the system better for students and educators.

Two things happen for de Blasio when we vote the contract down:

First, we weaken de Blasio politically, as his "signature" first labor deal that he is basing his whole budget on goes up in smoke and he's going to get lambasted in the press over that (he's already taking hits over the budget and Comptroller Stringer's forcing him to make an accounting change relating to retiring teachers.)

Second, we piss de Blasio off and may discover later on he is not so friendly to teachers anymore.

The first point is an important one - as I say, for all his faults, de Blasio is looking like he is going to be a good mayor for schools, students, and teachers.

It is in our long-term interests to help him politically so that he stays in office for a while.

We know that the corporate deform folks are mobilizing against him - if that wasn't obvious in the Eva/de Blasio charter war, I don't know what was - and we know that they are going to look to take him out in 2017 and put a pro-charter, pro-reform mayor in his place. Eva Moskowitz herself has suggested she might run in the future.

We do political damage to de Blasio when we vote this contract down and we have to figure out a way to mitigate that damage as much as possible because it is in our political interest to do so.

The second point is important too - de Blasio is not going to be too happy with us if we vote this down and he may decide if we are going to hurt him politically, there is less reason for him to help us going forward. I doubt he turns into Quinn or Weiner (both of whom I believe would have ultimately turned out hostile toward teachers - not as hostile as Bloomberg, but not as friendly as de Blasio either), but I bet he gets colder toward us in the future.

While I am in no way suggesting we should take a bad contract so we can prop de Blasio up politically or keep him happy with us, I am saying that we had better think about the long-term political consequences if we vote the contract agreement down and have a plan to deal with them afterwards.

How do we handle our relationship with de Blasio afterward so that it is still productive and not fraught with hostility and animosity? How do we help him politically so that he is not unduly weakened by having his "signature" labor contract and early-first term accomplishment sent back to him with "No thanks!" on it? How do we ensure that we keep a mayor friendly to public education in City Hall for more than one term and not find ourselves staring at Mayor Moskowitz (or, more likely, some Moskowitz-friendly mayor) in four years?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I want to raise them because I am not hearing much from the contract opposition that makes me think people are thinking these points through - and they are important ones.

Teachers are unhappy with the contract for a whole host of very good reasons.

Teachers want to send a message to Mulgrew, the political and economic elites and the public that they're mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore.

I get that and I feel it myself.

Alas, I'm not sure those messages are going to get across without planning and organizing in advance to get them across.

It's not enough to just say "Vote no!" and expect things will work out fine.

If the contract gets voted down, things get very complicated very quickly.

It's hard to predict how they turn out but I think there's a good chance that voting the contract down could boomerang on teachers if we are not careful how we handle the "What Comes After...?" question.

From what I see right now, we're not being careful at all about the "What Comes After...?" but just focusing on the fight to get the contract voted down and then engaging in some magical thinking that it just will work out better because it has to, because it did in 1995.

The truth is, it doesn't "have" to work out better - we have to MAKE IT work out better by making sure we can get our message out to the public over the shrillness of the corporate media, making sure we let de Blasio know it's nothing personal, we still want to work together, making sure that we don't do permanent political damage to a mayor who is friendly to traditional public schools and making sure we can counter the rhetoric from the fiscal watchdog concern trolls that the city can't "afford" a better contract for teachers so voting the contract down doesn't get us just another version of the same contract we have now.

Like I said earlier, I don't have the answers for how to handle these problems, but I know we ought to start turning our attention to them so we're ready to handle what comes after.

Cuomo Seeks To Pit Unions And Working Familes Party Activists Against Each Other

Blake Zeff at Capital NY with another illuminating column - this one on how Cuomo is working to undercut a WFP challenge from the left by pitting unions and activists in the party against each other.

That's why he's gotten a little friendly to the unions lately, including TWU 100 with last week's contract, as well as CWA (killing some deregulation that was in the Senate and his budget bill), 1199 (money in budget for pay increases for home health car workers) and 32BJ (raising wages for workers.)

The theory goes that Cuomo is bribing the unions now and with promises for the future in return for their political backing this election season - no matter what WFP does.

And if the WFP just so happens to back a third party candidate against him, well, that's when Cuomo goes to work to destroy the Working Families Party as a viable political entity:

In return for all this magnanimity, labor sources suggest, several of the key unions in the party—like 1199, 32BJ, HTC, and possibly, now, TWU—are leaning toward endorsing the governor and, certainly, away from supporting a protest candidacy.

But that might not be enough. 

While unions tend to play a key role in most political decisions made by the WFP (like the New York City mayor’s race, for example), statewide elections are different. They require that the party’s state committee—not the executive board—determine at the end of May who will represent the ballot line in November. And it just so happens that a significant number of the 200 or so seats on the committee are filled by anti-Cuomo activists in the Citizen Action mold. (As Liz Benjamin reported last month, more than 100 state committee members participated in a conference call at that time “to discuss the possibility” of not endorsing the governor.)

Cuomo could still appeal to those activists by addressing one of their pet issues, particularly public financing, before the WFP state convention in late May. But doing that could also cost him some major concessions from GOP senate leader Dean Skelos.

Assuming the activists still oppose him, it raises the possibility of individual unions—like 32BJ, 1199, and HTC—backing the governor and the Working Families Party simultaneously challenging him.

And that’s when Cuomo would go to work undercutting the party. 

If WFP were to launch a challenge to the governor, one theory gaining currency in Albany circles is that he could urge the unions that want to continue to do business with him after he wins to cripple the party’s future efforts by starving it of funding. Several Albany insiders I spoke to suggested that the governor could even conceivably seek to revive the Liberal Party, which is reportedly eyeing a comeback after effectively having been killed off by the WFP (and, unwittingly, Cuomo) in 2002, as a new home for some of those large unions, instead of the WFP.

WFP state director Bill Lipton dismissed this notion out of hand, telling Capital, "I haven't heard of any unions having their arm twisted to pull out of the Working Families Party."

A senior official at one of the party’s largest union affiliates agreed, saying, “The governor’s too smart to ask us to do that.”

Maybe. But the fact that the party’s activists and unions are not currently on the same page means, at the very least, a challenge from the left could get as messy for them as it is for Cuomo.

That will be the strategy Cuomo uses going forward to avoid WFP from endorsing anybody but him - the message is, if WFP backs another candidate, the war between Cuomo and the party is going to get ugly and it may just end with WFP facing its own civil war.

Daily News: Cuomo Stepping In To Broker MTA/TWU 100 Deal (UPDATE - 1:50 PM)

As surmised in this morning's NY Times piece, Governor Cuomo is indeed stepping in to broker a deal between the MTA and TWU 100 over deadlocked contract negotiations that has brought about the possibility of a summer transit strike hitting just months before Cuomo hopes to get re-elected:

Gov. Cuomo is stepping into the heated contract talks between the MTA and the union representing 34,000 transit workers, the Daily News has learned.

Cuomo has been claiming the three wage freeze CSEA and PEF agreed to as part of their five year contracts set a "state pattern" that city unions must follow in contract negotiations with de Blasio.

The MTA has stuck to the three year wage freeze and 2% in each of the final two years of a five year contract in their negotiations with TWU 100 despite an arbitration board handing over a non-binding deal that gives 17% raises over five years and no freezes.

If Cuomo brokers a deal that is anything different than what he forced CSEA and PEF to take early on in his administration, the state pattern is effectively broken from the one set in 2011.

I would argue that the state pattern has nothing to do with the city pattern in any case, but the argument that Cuomo (and apparently de Blasio, according to a PBA ad noted by James Eterno at ICEUFT blog) has been pushing, that the CSEA contract of 4% over 5 years with three years of wage freezes, sets the patterns for all city and state unions would effectively be dead.

This is something to watch closely because it has implications for city workers.

UPDATE - 12:45 PM: Here is what deal is supposedly on the table:

The MTA and the union representing subway and bus workers in the city are close to reaching an agreement on a new contract that would grant workers an 8% raise over five years, according to sources familiar with the talks.

Under the package now on the table, new hires would have to work for five years before reaching the top pay rate, an increase of two years, and worker contributions to health care costs would rise to 2% of base pay, from 1.5%, the sources said.

...

The potential breakthrough was being closely watched by workers in other MTA unions, particularly Long Island Rail Road employees, due to the possibility it could set a precedent. The MTA had previously insisted that workers accept a three-year wage freeze.

If true, this is nowhere near the 17% the arbitration board granted, but it does break the 4% over five years deal that CSEA took.

CORRECTION - 1:50 PM: Earlier I posted that ICEUFT blog had been sent information about the city's contract offer to the PBA. That was incorrect. ICEUFT blog was simply noting a PBA ad that had been run in the Daily News that said the police had been offered the CSEA pattern of a three year wage freeze and 4% over the final two years of a five year deal.

Cuomo Fears A Third Party Candidate Could Make Him Lose Re-Election

An extraordinary column from Fred Dicker in the NY Post:

After his worst week in office since becoming governor, Andrew Cuomo is now viewed for the first time by important Democrats as potentially vulnerable to Republican challenger Rob Astorino, The Post has learned.

The changing sentiment results from the extraordinary criticisms Cuomo received last week from corruption-fighting Southern District US Attorney Preet Bharara — because of the governor’s summary dismissal of his anti-corruption Moreland Commission panel — and from an assortment of “good-government’’ over his transparently phony plan for a severely limited system of publicly financed elections.

“It was a disastrous week for Andrew. He was being attacked all over town, and it appeared to be the culmination of not just weeks, but months, of eroding support for the governor from within his own Democratic base,’’ one of the state’s most influential Democrats told The Post.

“People are starting to say, ‘Hey, maybe Astorino has a chance in the race, even if it is a long shot,’ and a lot of people, Democrats, are starting to also say that wouldn’t be such a bad thing,’’ he continued.

Several Democratic strategists said Cuomo’s eroding support among politically powerful New York City-based unions, including those behind the influential Working Families Party, all but assures an unusually low turnout among the city’s heavily Democratic voters, normally the foundation for a statewide Democratic victory.

At the same time, they expect Astorino, the popular and recently re-elected Westchester County executive, to do well, offsetting Democratic votes in his large suburban county, and his message of property-tax and spending cuts, educational reforms and economic development to appeal to suburban voters on Long Island as well.

“The traditional dynamics for Cuomo appear to be changing, with a big New York City vote no longer guaranteed and a bigger problem in the suburbs, because of Astorino, than [the governor] had expected,’’ said a prominent campaign consultant.

Cuomo, meanwhile, held a tense, hush-hush, meeting with Working Families Party leaders Dan Cantor and Bob Masters at his campaign headquarters in Manhattan last Thursday in an effort to head off the growing possibility that the WFP will field its own candidate for governor in November.

A source said Cuomo was told what he already knew: While the union-controlled WFP’s leadership would like to “do’’ Cuomo as the party’s nominee, widespread unhappiness with Cuomo’s support for business-tax cuts, spending restraints and a fatally flawed publicly financed campaign system is making that difficult.

Cuomo's vulnerable, folks, and that vulnerability is underscored by his need to meet up with WFP leaders in a "tense, hush-hush" pow-wow at his campaign headquarters last week to tell them they MUST not go the third party candidate route.

So far, opponents and critics from the left have been loathe to take on Sheriff Andy for fear that he would retaliate once re-elected.

But there now exists the possibility that he can be knocked off and that possibility brings leverage against the governor for groups on the left as well as the unions.

Cuomo expects the unions to use their GOTV operations in NYC for him and he expects the WFP to endorse him and further gin up the city vote totals in his column.

Cuomo is pretty unpopular upstate and in western New York, so he needs the city votes to offset weakness there, but what if they gave an election and the unions sat on their hands and the WFP didn't endorse Cuomo and Cuomo's city vote totals plummeted?

As Dicker says, GOP opponent Astorino remains a longshot, but a better longshot this week than he was last week as Cuomo faces challenges like he has never faced before.

I am in the camp that taking Cuomo out and electing a Republican benefits us better than re-electing Cuomo and letting him do to us what he did in the first term - tax cap, charter school protections, etc.

With a GOP governor, the Assembly becomes the linchpin to keep insane policies from being enacted, as the Dems there will look to hold the line against a Republican governor.

But with the Republican-Lite Cuomo in office right now pushing conservative fiscal policies, union-busting and corporate education reform, we have no linchpin to hold the line against these policies - the Dems in the Assembly just go along.

No matter what happens, we are seeing something extraordinary this week - a weakened and chastened Sheriff Andy Cuomo actually looking to the left for help in his re-election bid.

Cuomo's veneer of invincibility is disappearing and that's a very dangerous thing for Sheriff Andy.

He's got a lot of enemies out there in both parties and when they see they can hurt him without fear of retaliation, the floodgates are going to open up on him.

Union Doormen And Handymen Get Contract With No Givebacks

Obviously a different thing than the municipal unions, but wanted to point out what looks to be a pretty good contract:

The union representing doormen and handymen reached a tentative agreement Friday with the Realty Advisory Board, averting a possible strike that would have affected thousands of city residents.

Service Employees International Union 32 BJ agreed to a four-year deal that includes a 11.3% raise for doormen, supers, handymen and porters who work in residential buildings.

If ratified by the SEIU 32BJ membership, the deal will cover 30,000 union workers in 3,300 buildings across the five boroughs.

The tentative agreement contained no givebacks and workers' pensions and health care packages are protected, the union said.

"We are proud to say that we have made it a little easier for 30,000 New Yorkers to make this city their home," said Hector Figueroa, president of SEIU 32BJ. "In a city that has become increasingly unequal, this contract will keep 30,000 building workers on a pathway to the middle class, which will also benefit the communities in which they live."

SEIU 32BJ's members are the highest-paid residential building service workers in the country. The tentative agreement includes a wage increase of 2.7% each year for four years.

That will bring the average wage for a New York City doorman from $44,389 to $49,402 by the contract's end.

The union's generous health care package - with no employee contributions - remains intact, as does its defined benefit pension plan. 

Landlords and condos are raking the money in these days, with rents in Manhattan up and prices for available condos higher than ever, so why shouldn't the doormen and handymen get an 11.3% raise with no givebacks and share in some of that?

Here's how the New York Observer described the contract:

In a city with growing inequality, the doormen’s union has become a rare bulwark of the middle class.

The deal will keep members ahead of inflation and the rising cost of living, according to the union, working out to a wage increase of some $4,972 for doormen over the next four years that will bring salaries to just under $50,000 in 2018. Though union members’ salary is also supplemented via tips and the deal will protect members’ pension and health care plans.

“This contract will allow me to pay my bills and get out of debt,” said Manhattan doorman Donald Killings in a statement. “The truth is, it’s a matter of respect. It makes me feel like I’m really respected on the job. And I won’t have to take on another job, as I have in the past.”

I'll be frank - I want the 4%-4% all the other municipal unions got for the 2009/2010 pattern, but after that catch-up contract, I would be happy with a 2.7% wage increase with no givebacks per year for four years.

But I'm pretty sure the UFT will negotiate something that "scrapes the skies" and sells off the few protections teachers have left for a measly few percentage points.

That's been my experience in the three contracts I have been around for.

Of course, I suppose getting a few percentage points for a sell-out on work protections is better than agreeing to it for free the way they did with APPR and RttT.

Newark Star-Ledger Lays Off 25% Of Non-Unionized Newsroom Employees

Brutal:

In a grim day of reckoning at the state’s largest newspaper, the owners of The Star-Ledger today said they were eliminating the jobs of approximately 167 people, including 25 percent of the newsroom.

The sweeping job loss was part of a plan announced last week in an effort to greatly reduce costs and combine resources by consolidating the operations of The Star-Ledger, along with its sister publications in New Jersey and its online partner, NJ.com, which also announced cutbacks today.

The Star-Ledger, which has won three Pulitzer Prizes and several national awards, currently has 750 employees, of which approximately 500 are non unionized. None of the cuts announced today will affect unionized personnel, who are covered under existing labor contracts.

The cuts will mean the loss of 40 of the 156 reporters, editors, photographers and support staff in The Star-Ledger newsroom, which had already seen a parade of people leaving in recent weeks over concerns about the paper’s future and the continuing fiscal pressures affecting newspapers across the country. One of those leaving voluntarily had been slated to be cut.

The newsroom is not unionized.

Will the non-unionized, union-hating editorial writers continue to write editorials about the evils of teachers unions and such?

Or were they laid off in the carnage too?

Oh, but some of these Star-Ledger employees may be hired back - at lower pay:

 Those being let go will not necessarily leave immediately. In packets that were being handed out this morning, those being told their jobs were being eliminated were offered severance packages if they agreed to stay with the newspaper until NJ Advance Media, new media company being formed, is up and running.

Star-Ledger employees receiving offer letters of jobs with the new company in some cases were being given different positions or titles, some at lower pay. They will have a week to decide to accept the offer, the offer letters said. 

The unions took hard contracts last year including job losses, so unionized employees didn't go untouched in this mess.

It is a very challenging environment for the creative classes these days - especially writers.

Soon there will only be jobs in finance and services - everything in between will be gone, killed by the Internets, technological advances and globalization.

Will Cuomo Allow Any Changes To NYC Teacher Evaluations?

I've posted the past few days about how much Andrew Cuomo likes to stick it to his "friend," Bill de Blasio, on issue after issue.

Anthony Weiner and Michael Powell of the NY Times both wrote about this earlier in the week, with "jerk" Anthony Weiner going so far as to call Cuomo a "jerk" over it.

Yesterday Cuomo got everything he wanted in the budget deal on the charter issue, in the words of the NY Post "sticking it to de Blasio" over his vow to charge charters rent for leasing space in city public schools.

The proposed budget deal also puts the city on the hook for co-locations or paying for space for all future charters.

In short, Cuomo took de Blasio to the woodshed over the charter issue for his buddy Eva Moskowitz and her allies, all big Cuomo campaign donors.

We're in the middle of contract negotiations here in the city and one of the items being worked out is the teacher evaluation system, which is a mess.

The system in NYC was imposed by SED Commissioner King as directed by Cuomo's last budget deal and is largely seen as onerous and odious by almost everybody involved with it - except for SED Commissioner King, who came up with it, and Governor Cuomo, who brags about it.

Whatever changes the UFT and the city agree to over evaluations in contract negotiations, don't be surprised if Cuomo doesn't stick his nose into the deal and try and have his way over the evaluation issue here in NYC.

As Cuomo has said over and over, he will brook no changes to the APPR teacher evaluation system, he believes it is perfect just the way it is and it is one of the prime items he plans to tout during his 2014 re-election campaign and his 2016 run for president (i.e., holding those lazy-ass teachers "accountable" for student performance.)

There was talk of de-linking the Common Core tests from APPR for two years, but Cuomo would have none of it and ensured those changes did not make it into the budget deal, though a moratorium on CCSS high stakes will be enacted for students.

Thus teachers will be held accountable for test scores that children will not, an odd twist that I hope will be challenged in court.

He also threatened the Regents when they suggested a minor change to APPR.

In any case, Cuomo has shown relish for "sticking it" to de Blasio over and over and I fully expect him to continue to do soon on issue after issue - and that includes teacher evaluations and contracts here in NYC.

Cuomo has already said he believes that the city contract pattern was set by the PEF/CSEA contract model he forced onto those unions in his first year in Albany, so you can see how he is already sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong.

If the city and the union agree to changes to the evaluation system that Cuomo doesn't like, don't be surprised if he doesn't try and "stick it" to de Blasio again and engineer some kind of kibbosh on the deal.

Cuomo has already circumvented mayoral control in this latest charter school rent/co-location budget deal.

He may do so again if the UFT contract/evaluation negotiation doesn't go the way he wants it to.