No on the Tentative Agreement

***Please forward this widely***

Many issues are important to the members of UESF but we in EDU believe that the issue of layoffs is the main concern of the members of our union. We are therefore urging UESF members to vote NO on the tentative agreement.

UESF members have been angered by SFUSD's hardball negotiating that threatens the livelihoods of our colleagues. Each of us in EDU (Educators for a democratic Union) heard members say they would be willing to make sacrifices to save the jobs of their colleagues.

EDU supported the UESF bargaining team when it made "No Layoffs!" the central component of their organizing campaign (as opposed to the important, but less central issues of 18 non-monetary, contractual items). During this campaign, UESF's leadership demonstrated that the district has the resources to rescind every single layoff. UESF called on the District to cut much deeper into the $52 million in consultant funds. UESF called on SFUSD to use a large portion of the nearly $40 million in reserves to preserve jobs.

The money was there but the political will was not. SFUSD did not take our demands seriously until UESF set a date (May 20th) for a membership meeting to authorize a strike vote. This single act helped communicate what we were willing to do to prevent all the layoffs. This, together with political pressure from families and students, forced the District to dramatically reduce the number of layoffs.

But SFUSD has not gone far enough. They still aim to lay-off up to 250 of our certificated and classified members. This is unacceptable. We in EDU are convinced that the money is there to save the jobs of the 250 brothers and sisters who work in our schools and have proven their dedication to our students and families.

Unfortunately, the UESF leadership pulled the plug on the strike-vote authorization meeting. This was a serious error. Until May 12, the UESF leadership maintained there was enough money to prevent all layoffs. What caused the leadership to back off from this position?

What does it say to our members when we ask all of us to "share" in making sacrifices, but then accept layoffs that would have some sacrifice more: their jobs and dreams of being an educator in SF.

Some will say it is irresponsible to dip into the reserves. The opposite is true: It is irresponsible NOT to use the reserves. A teacher or a para lost is a blow to our classrooms, to our children.

Replenishing the reserves would then be a major task of the union, the Board of Education and of the city and state officials. UESF could spearhead this fight, as it did in the streets of San Francisco on March 4. One of the main demands of that historic day of action, featured on the banner of the rally platform, was Progressive Taxation Now!

Five years ago, our willingness to strike resulted in an 8.5% raise. We were out in the streets with our communities on March 4th. The Oakland Education Association's recent one-day strike forced OUSD back to the bargaining table. Action works!

To that end, EDU will be urging all UESF members to vote "NO" on any tentative agreement that has layoffs in it. We do think it's crucial that every UESF member vote on the tentative agreement, so we will be abstaining when the Assembly votes whether or not to ratify the agreement on May 19. EDU believes that ultimately this decision must be made by the members: vote for the tentative agreement and accept 250 layoffs, or take a stand now to save all our members' jobs –vote no on the tentative agreement, go back to the bargaining table to demand that all layoffs be rescinded and authorize UESF to call for a strike.

UESF Assembly Report 4/28/10

UESF Assembly Report (4/28/10) - from EDU

Attendance – 55

Meeting Agenda:

Special Order of Business:

CALSTRS presentation

Resolutions:

1. Bargaining Package
2. Jobs with Justice
3. Candidates for State Office
4. Support for AD12 & 13 Progressive Slate of Candidates
5. Support for Mello Roos Parcel Tax

Organizing

The first issue of substance to come to the floor on the Assembly was the “Bargaining Package”. It’s message was exclusively on the non-monetary issues. “Whereas the SFUSD negotiators are seeking to deny UESF members non-monetary contractual improvements in difficult times” and finished off with “Therefore the bargaining team is directed to settle contract negotiations with a package proposal that addresses the various outstanding elements of the issues on the table”

This was vague to the extreme. Lita proposed language that added language on no-layoffs but the unions did not want to ‘tie the bargaining team’s hands” by instructing the BT to bargain from that position. EDU members pointed out that members could care less about the non-monetary issues and wanted most to see the layoffs resisted so the resolution should speak to that. Also, there was no real clarity on what the UESF would actually be fighting for or where the bottom line was.

In the end, I think EDU might have been better off to vote against this on the basis of it being so extremely vague but I think resolution was so weak and the room so deflated, it was not entirely clear what to do. The BT is operating so non-transparently and with such little oversight by the Assembly or even the Executive Board that we that we have sort of gotten a little used to meaningless resolutions like this which give the BT carte blanche to do anything. As it was the resolution won with an addition of ‘No layoffs’ in the whereas but no clear direction of the BT by the Assembly.

UESF unanimously supported entrance into the Jobs with Justice Coalition.

The issue of Candidates for State Office and for AD12 & 13 was skipped. The most provocative one was calling for UESF to endorse Jerry Brown for Governor and Gavin Newsome for Lt. Governor. When I approached Dennis K. about why these issues were skipped he told me that they did not need a recommendation or vote from the Assembly. He said a COPE endorsement and Executive Board vote was good enough. I am not sure that’s true but it was clear they would rather discuss supporting 2 candidates with lousy records on supporting public sector workers, supporting progressive taxation or public education. It was just unions throwing more money down the Democratic Party sink hole and doing it without any discussion by the Assembly.

We then had to wait through a long discussion about CALSTRS. Some of this was interesting, but you would know that our union is at impasse, in deep crisis organizationally, and about to make historically large concessions in its contract. This report could have been given any month not in the context of the deepest crisis our union has ever faced.

The Organizing section was clearly an attempt to try and breathe some life into our union which is on life-support. It seemed also to be led by the CTA organizer who was brought in. We broke up into 10 focus groups and were asked questions on where our sites were at, what questions were out there and what should UESF do now.

People should report on their focus group, but our facilitator got an earful. Members could care less about the 18 non-monetary items. Layoffs want clarity on layoffs. Members are not clear on what we are saying to counter SFUSD claim that they are bargaining in good faith. SFUSD has effectively gotten out the message that the union is the block based on 18 issues many do not feel are critical in comparison to the issues we face. Members need to see the union aggressively countering SFUSD propaganda with our own information. Members are deflated and don’t see the point of the going to school board. They need to believe they are getting a clear message from the BT and they are not. They get mush. I made a suggestion that BT members go on a campaign to visit school sites to rally members around the contract and around layoffs. There was some defensiveness around this at first but eventually our facilitator relented and just heard us. I did not see him writing much down though.


Finally, there was the President’s report. There the issue was clarified that UESF had offered $26 million in the form of 8 furlough days over two years and in terms of money from Prop. A. There are three mediation dates, the first April 29th and two more before the May 11th Board of Ed meeting. There overall plan seemed to again focus on another Board of Ed. Rally on May 11 before the Layoff deadline. . At the same time, As confused or inept as the BT is, we ought to be encouraging people to go to the May 11th rally. We don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines as 1100 union members face lay-off. I think EDU's main job right now is to try to hold the leadership to their commitment to NO LAY-OFFS




Finally, I personally was shocked at the complete lack of support for the OEA brothers and sisters going on their one-day strike. Dennis was polite it dismissing it, but VP Plack was positively derisive of their strike and their attempt to resist a contract being imposed on them. It was rich to a hear a union leadership which is doing nothing deride a union which has actually tried to mobilize a fight back (with whatever problems it has). Disgusting. And the complete opposite of solidarity or the spirit of an injury to one is an injury to all which is the backbone of unionism.

Thie was a miserable, depressing Assembly. Overall, the leadership seems to be completely isolated, is not willing to share information or strategy in any of the normal forums (Assembly or even Executive Board) and has just confined the decision making to a few people on the BT. This is a disaster and spells bad news for the coming bargaining under an imposed negotiator. Our union is no where near to mobilizing, our BT is isolated and confused and those of us who have been arguing for a different approach in EDU are now at a loss for how to proceed in the face of no vehicle for entering into decision making in our union.

Thie was a miserable, depressing Assembly. Overall, the leadership seems to be completely isolated, is not willing to share information or strategy in any of the normal forums (Assembly or even Executive Board) and has just confined the decision making to a few people on the BT. This is a disaster and spells bad news for the coming bargaining under an imposed negotiater. Our union is no where near to mobilizing, our BT is isolated and confused and those of us who have been arguing for a different approach in EDU are now at a loss for how to proceed in the face of no vehicle for entering into decision making in our union.


At the same time, as bleak as all this looks, Adrienne J. sent some words of encouragement that think are worth considering (here it is below)

"While I do agree that it looks like doors are closing with almost no way for the membership to get in, I still think it's important to emphasize to ourselves and others that EDU has continued to be a group that is asking questions, that is trying to push towards action, that is raising solidarity, etc. When we have to go back to our sites (if we haven't already) and report on the dismal state of affairs, there is a layer of people around us who are grateful to hear some straight talk, who want to come closer to EDU because they agree that this is the kind of conversation and organization it will take to even have a chance of building a membership that can fight for itself. Folks should know that Deirdre who came to our last meeting emailed me to let me know she has another coworker who might come to our next EDU meeting. I think I have a coworker who is closer to committing to checking out our next meeting. I wonder if most of us don't also have that 1 person, or 2 people that also might want to do the same. I think now is time to look around us and see who else is disgusted at this turn of events and might be interested in coming closer to our caucus."

Assembly minutes (3/17/10) from EDU

Assembly minutes (3/17/10) from EDU

Attendance 110 - 120

The Assembly was very well attended. It was not well advertised and the card I received only talked about “Constitution and Bylaws ratification and more’ so there was no publicized indication of the importance of this Assembly meeting. The improved attendance seems clearly a result of the March 4^th organizing that went on before it, also it is clear sites came prepared with questions on bargaining, and I think the controversy over the union stance on Ethnic Studies and Dennis Kelly’s “Hitler Youth” comment clearly brought out partisans on both sides.

It was also the longest (ending at about 8pm), and ultimately one of the most contentious Assembly meetings I have ever been a part of in my 7 years of attendance. I will try and break down what I think happened and what it means below.

The Agenda was:

Special Order of Business

1) Election Committee Report

2) UESF Bargaining Report

Resolutions:

3) Constitution/Bylaws Ratification Proposal

4) In support of Ethnic Studies (Part I)

5) Call for Apology by President (Ethnic Studies II)

6) Allegations Against the Union by the School Board Member

Dennis Kelly delivered a bargaining report which made it clear that UESF was trying to be reasonable about finding alternative money sources (particularly within parts of Prop. A that was not seen as essential). The District rejected virtually every proposal (both monetary and non-monetary) that the UESF made. DK was clearly painting a picture of SFUSD as being uncooperative and combative in its posture. He also seemed to indicate an awareness that UESF might have to respond with more than just ‘Blue shirts’.

EDU members spoke to the possibility of UESF giving more vocal support to sites refusing to sign on to cuts that are being asked to be made by SSCs (a part of the EDU strategy for fighting the cuts). UESF has already drafted a good letter giving legal cover for the act, and now steps could be made to build support for that by UESF. DK did not commit to such a strategy but they seem to be leaning toward it. In addition, UESF now seems to be behind building an activist presence at the next school board meeting on March 23^rd (and building it as a member meeting to be updated on bargaining). This is a good step that had been pressed by EDU in a letter campaign to Dennis Kelly. At the same time, there seems to be no clear framework for bargaining put forward. If UESF members show up at the school board on Tuesday....what will the picket signs handed out by UESF say? No lay-offs? Cut adminstration, not educators? or "Two furlough days is enough!!!! or Increase our class size!!!just don't freeze our pay?

UESF leaders took some heat for already accepting furlough days at the bargaining table and giving in before SFUSD had matched our goals of fiscal transparency. UESF leaders countered that they needed to give ground to show ‘good faith’ bargaining and not to arrive at impasse and have a solution imposed from the outside. UESF seems to be committed to not going fast (a good thing) but also not really yet in organizing mode for preparing members to act (not a good thing). The bargaining team also seems to believe that ‘Time is on our side’. With 900 layoffs staring our members in the face, I am not clear how that is, but the union is also in not currently in a rush to settle and I think has been surprised by the hard line taken by SFUSD.

Still UESF leaders pressed on the notion of ‘fiscal realism’ and used the well-attended meeting to try and douse people’s expectation s of what could be done. EDUers countered very well with saying that “we should not be the ones being asked to make sacrifice, because we always are.” EDUers also gave an unapologetic defense of having a militant attitude and re-made the argument that we need not settle for layoffs and cuts (because the money was there, or could be found). This discussion was significant and found real audience in the room.

In particular, Jeramiah’s CAT proposal (more below): which shows “OUR BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED WITHOUT TAKING AWAY OUR CHILDREN'S TEACHERS, PARAPROFESSIONALS, NURSES AND OTHER SUPPORT STAFF!! These cuts would be felt on the administrative level and would leave our class size intact, and maintain the adult to child ratio that we currently have.”

This proposal generated a lot of interest. While Jeremiah’s motion to have this proposal endorsed by UESF was tabled because of the lack of information on it, there is clearly an opening to push CAT at the EB and next assembly as a viable alternative to the current SFUSD budget process.

The resolution on a ratification was passed without much discussion and seemed unanimous. This was a joint effort by Dennis K. and Tom E. and is significant in that it ensures that members will get a full vote on a new contract wither by ballot or membership meeting (if we get a quorum).

By 6:15, we finally arrived at the discussion on Ethnic studies and people were starting to leave but the room was still surprisingly crowded at this late time which showed people stayed to be part of this. The first resolution called for an unapologetic support of Ethnic Studies in the context of UESF raising some concerns of losing jobs if Ethnic Studies was adopted. This issue was raised again, but countered fairly successfully by the authors of the Ethnic Studies resolution. Also, some PLC members again expressed their irritation of having to wait until Ethnic Studies supporters had spoken at the Board of Ed meeting. There was clearly still only partial support for Ethnic Studies in the room. It did bring up a debate about the nature of institutional racism (does it operate within UESF). EDUers said it did. And about what the value of UESF support of such issues was in building alliances outside the union to our communities of color we serve. There was attempt to defang it politically which were unsuccessful and ultimately the resolution passed 35 – 20.

Which brought us to the apology resolution. Jerimiah introduced it and was simply making a statement of fact that DK did refer to the students as “Hitler Youth”, that he admitted it was unfortunate and apologized to individuals, and this admission should be made public and made to outreach to out students communities of color and people who fought for Ethnic Studies. Dennis essentially countered that his comment was taken out of context and that it was his opinion that this whole operation was politically motivated and led by Jane Kim to embarrass him and weaken the union. He cited (twice..ouch) an e-mail I had sent him that I had received from a teacher ally very early in the controversy in which Jane Kim expressed criticism of his remarks and urged UESF members to criticize the comments. This laid the basis for the strategy of calling for a substitution of the Apology resolution for the a resolution introduced by Sandra Mack to call on Jane Kim to apologize for ‘her’ allegations or racism against Dennis Kelly and called on UESF to file an ‘Unfair labor practice charge” against SFUSD if she does not respond.

This was clearly an attempt to deflect all attention that came to Dennis for his comment onto a Board member that UESF does not politically support. The worst thing though was as the allegations made that the authors of the ‘apology’ resolution were merely acting as Jane Kim’s political representatives and denying any political critique or outrage that came outside of Jane Kim (from our students, from other teachers or from community allies). Secondly, a PLC very quickly called the substitution to question before many EDUers or even Ethnic Studies representatives could speak to the substitution and their own independent anger at DK’s comments. This maneuver clearly raised the tension in the room significantly. Particularly after it passed 30 – 18.

Jerimiah called for a ‘point of personal privilege’ to counter any allegations that the resolution was a result of actions of Jane Kim. He was then hooted down and drowned out by members of the audience that backed the ‘call to question’ maneuver and was even approached by the Sergeant at Arms to take a seat an not speak. This was quite an ugly site to watch as a person who had reached out to Dennis (even in criticism) to resolve this was set upon by a loud mob. It was ugly, undemocratic and racist, plain and simple. The maneuver was even more exposed when the ‘substitution resolution’ was then tabled after it had removed the apology.

What to make of all this? This was an exhausting meeting. After putting these LONG notes together I do see that for all its drama. EDU is clearly having an impact on shaping the agenda of the union on bargaining. We should continue to press. To open up the debate on “No cuts, No layoffs, Emergency Funding Now!”. To call for the union to look at CAT as a budget alternative (which is something that shold be discussed and debated in EDU), to get UBCs and SSCs to reject their budgets and to get our union to actually call on its members to fight. The initiative around this is actually there and we should press forward on it.

On Ethnic Studies, there was a victory in getting it passed (although I was surprised by the resistance to it). As for the apology, we were outmaneuvered, but it’s worth remembering they had weeks to plan a strategy and EDU helped support this in the context of March 4^thorganizing, supporting SSCs to reject budgets and taking on the attack against the “poorest performing” 12 SFUSD schools. I personally regret sending DK that e-mail when I received it but I did it in good faith at the time, and got burned for it. I apologize for that to our allies in Ethnic Studies and in EDU who fought around that.

This was a difficult meeting, but EDUers again comported themselves very well, and did not get into the gutter tactics that ultimately this meeting descended into. We were open about how we operated with Dennis the whole time and tried multiple ‘behind the scenes’ methods for resolving this and getting him to heal the damage from his comment. We were met with brick walls, with a surprise resolution and maneuver at the Assembly and then final by “Robert Rules” methods used to silence our members who had stayed hours to speak on the issue. It was a new low for the PLC.

Still, I believe we need to build March 23^rd Board of Ed. meeting and push forward on the fight on the district. That is the priority and no matter the ugly end to the Assembly.

NEA Representative Assembly and the CTA State Council

EDU: Educators for a Democratic Union

Support progressive and democratic unionism in the UESF delegations at the NEA Representative Assembly and the CTA State Council!

Vote for the activists who helped organize massive grassroots participation on March 4th!

Vote for EDU-supported candidates for
[Note: the number next to the name is the person’s number on the ballot]

National Educational Association
Representative Assembly:
# 2 Lisa Gutierrez Guzman
# 16 Darlene Anaya
# 21 Jeremiah Jefferies

CTA Golden Gate Service Center Council for
NEA Representative Assembly:
# 47 Lisa Gutierrez Guzman

CTA State Council:
# 35 Darlene Anaya

CTA State Council alternates:
# 42 Lisa Gutierrez Guzman

BALLOTS DUE by MARCH 26thth: Please mail by March 19th

Build a broad-based fightback:
Against cuts and for progressive taxation and majority rule.
Fight the testing regime and the race to the bottom!


Contact us/Educators for a Democratic Union:
edudemocraticunion@gmail.com
http://sites.google.com/site/educatorssf/home
http://educatorssf.blogspot.com/

Vote EDU

It's time to elect UESF delegates to both the CFT and AFT conventions. We are writing to ask for your support. We are the educators of EDU - Educators for a Democratic Union. We fight tirelessly at our work sites and inside our union to build a stronger, more active, more democratic union. What have we done this past year?

-Many of us represented you at the CFT convention last year.

-We represent you at the CTA State Council throughout the year.

-We ran for union office last year and received nearly 1/3 of the vote!

-We hold monthly EDU meetings to discuss issues in education on both a national and local level as well as what we can do to strengthen our own union.

-We held a study group on Arne Duncan's Race to the Top initiative to more deeply understand this attack on educators' unions.

-We brought resolutions to the UESF Executive Board and Assembly to endorse the March 4 statewide day of action, antiwar and immigrant rights demonstrations.

-We are organizing our worksites for the actions and demonstrations throughout the city on March 4.

We ask for your support in the CFT and AFT election so that we can continue to put forward a vision for fully funded public education that is relevant and addresses issues of racism, sexism and class. Please spread this message to other UESF members you know and visit our website to find out more about us.

http://sites.google.com/site/educatorssf/home

http://educatorssf.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your support,

the CFT and AFT candidates of EDU

names of candidates listed below, with ballot number:

for CFT.....

Lisa Gutierrez Guzman, 1

Magdalena De Guzman, 16

Darlene M Anaya, 18

Tom Edminster, 21

Lita Blanc, 23

David Russitano, 27

Andy Libson, 32

for AFT...

Derrlyn Tom, 36

Adrienne Johnstone, 55

Lita Blanc, 57

David Russitano, 60

Building a Vibrant Left in our Union

A year ago, a group of UESF activists got together and formed EDU – Educators for a Democratic Union. What do we do? We organize our work sites, represent members, run in UESF elections, sit on the Executive Board, speak up at the Assembly meetings and push our union to be active, inclusive, democratic and transparent.

It has come to our attention that the caucus of our current leadership, PLC – Progressive Leadership Caucus, has been contacting UESF members and inviting them to their own PLC meetings. We are glad anytime we see people trying to get more members involved in our union. We were dismayed to hear that in trying to bring new members around their caucus, inflammatory statements about EDU were part of the pitch.

Our caucus formed because we believe that only by activating and involving the largest number of members possible, only by resisting the never ending cuts to education instead of cooperating with them, can we really start to reform education. This is strengthening the union, not breaking it.

Our caucus is made up of educators from throughout the district. We include leftists, progressives, Greens, liberal Democrats, socialists, Trotskyists, radicals, grassroots youth organizers, communists, trade union veterans, younger teachers, experienced organizers and more. We will not sit by quietly while words like “front group” and “Trotskyist” are used to try to slander the good work that the people in our caucus do. We are proud to be building a vibrant active left wing in our union that welcomes people with different politics, including Trotskyists. We are brought together by a desire to bring folks into a democratic process of empowerment.

We would like to remind our UESF brothers and sisters that the darkest days our labor movement has ever seen were the McCarthy years when socialists, Trotskyists, communists and just good old trade union radicals were all painted with the same brush and run out of the unions.

We invite you all to come to one of our meetings, to join our conversation, to check out our website and see for yourself. If you’re looking to hear some real talk about Arne Duncan and Race to the Top, join us. If you’re looking to learn about becoming a union activist, join us. And especially if you’re looking to organize your worksite to fight back on March 4, join us. We’d love to talk to you.

Rose Berryessa, Lita Blanc, Kathleen Cecil, Tom Edminster, Lisa Gutierrez Guzman, Adrienne Johnstone, Cynthia Lasden, Andy Libson, Aaron Neimark, David Russitano, Ron Trapp, Karen Zapata, Magdalana De Guzman and Larry Orloff

Check out:

Educators for a Democratic Union

On the web: http://educatorssf.blogspot.com/

Email for more information: edudemocraticunion@googlegroups.com

Next Meeting:

Wednesday February 10, 2010

4.30-6.00 p.m.

Glen Park Library meeting room

Don't give up before the fight!

Carlos Garcia has proposed a devastating packet of budget cuts and has asked for UESF’s help in pushing the cuts through by the end of February. The Executive Board is holding an emergency meeting this coming Wednesday to consider options. While its important that the leadership of UESF is demanding that the district provide a detailed explanation of its budget proposal, we do not think our union should accept Garcia's emergency timeframe or be preparing our members for concessions. We have to put up a fight.

EDU – Educators for a Democratic Union - believes that UESF officers and the executive board need to hear from as many members ASAP to urge the union to slow this process down. Please send email UESF officers (dkelly@uesf.org,lplack@uesf.org, ssolomon@uesf.org) and tell them:

1. We do not have to accept Garcia’s timeline. Don’t fast-track us into a concessionary contract that is anti-educator and anti-student. The school board has until March 15^th to send out lay-off notices. Do not give up without a fight.

2. Our starting point should be the demands passed by the UESF Assembly for the March 4^th rally: NO CUTS! NO LAY-OFFS! EMERGENCY FUNDING for EDUCATION!

3. MOBILIZE at the school board on January 26^th and MOBILIZE with parents, students, and our labor allies on March 4^th.

4. Do not deal with our contract as an emergency. We need to be informed and involved every step of the way.

Please pass this message on to everyone you know – families, students, teachers, paras, community members.

It’s time to draw a line!

Educators for a Democratic Union