Document summary ed 426 064 tm 029 283 author title institution publishing date note available in pub type journal cit edrs prices description identifiers antonucci, steam guard desktop mike is gone at the altar: the merging of teacher unions and the opportunity for education reform. Thomas b. Fordham foundation, washington dc. 1998-10-00 24r. Thomas b. Fordham foundation, 1015 18th street nw, office 300, washington dc 20036; tel: 888-823-7474 (toll-free); website: http://www.Edexcellence.Net (single copies are free). Collected works - series (022) -- reports - descriptive (141) fordham report; v2 nlo october 1998. Mf01/pc01 plus postage. ♦ Collective agreement; history of education; educational policy; primary secondary education; labor relations; ♦ mergers; policy making; * association of teachers; members of the union; *unions ♦american federation of teachers; *national education association summary for over a year, a number of one million members of the national education association (nea) and 900,000 members of the american federation of teachers (aft) have been negotiating a merger. The plan was to unite american teachers into one union to establish collective bargaining, political cliques, and educational policy. This report gives a detailed picture of the maneuvers of the union winners and their opponents, as well as the final vote that rejected the proposal. The report contains: the history of nea and aft - professionalism against unions; negotiations - a meeting of the joint council; unity principles - afl-cio membership, state rights; debate; vote; and the future nea. (Sld) ************************************************** ******** ****************************** * the reproductions provided by edrs are considered to be the best they can be. Be * made from the original document. Tm029283 t 3" vo o vo cn q w m thomas b. Ordham oundation outside the box permission to reproduce and release this material to the public has been granted by the u.S. Department of education office of educational research and improvement education resources posts ^ center (eric) /fthis document has been reproduced in this □ minor changes have been made to improve playback quality • the views or opinions expressed in this policy do not need to reflect the official position or policy of oeri mike antonucci, october 1998. O eric 2 (/ordham (report, vol. 2, no. 10, october 1998, left at the altar. Merger of teacher unions and perspectives on education reform, mike antonucci 4- ■ - thomas b. T# ordham oundation outs/of the box contents foreword by chester e. Finn, jr. Page iii executive summary page v introduction page 1 history page 2 negotiations page 4 unity principles page 6 debate page 7 go slashing page 10 futu re page 1-3 conclusion page 14 4 o eric left at the altar i foreword education reformers often see teacher unions as the ultimate wealthy barrier to such upheavals. In fact, unions have come under fire recently as stubborn, self-serving defenders of an unsatisfactory status quo. In response to both this criticism and the acceleration of reforms, they undertook to strengthen. An important difference in this direction was the attempt to merge the two main unions: the national education association (nea), with two to three million members, and the american federation of teachers (aft), with 900,000 members. Although their romance was not a secret, the educational world was surprised by the announcement that a formal agreement was about to be struck in july 1998, when delegates to the conventions of both unions were asked to vote on the principles of the merger. Once these votes were set, observers began to speculate about the impact of a single giant teachers' union on education reform, as if approval of the merger was a done deal. One observer who did not take this approval for granted was mike antonucci of the educational intelligence agency, who has been closely studying nea and aft for years and whose insight and perseverance in this difficult task is astonishing. We asked mike to report on the merger vote and bring his considerable research and analytical skills to the historical background. When nea's national convention delegates arrived in new orleans to vote on the merger plan, mike was there to watch, listen and ask questions. In case those delegates flatly rejected the proposed merger, mike had a personal chance to explain why. And then mike antonucci's report gives the man a candid account of the maneuvers of the union recommendation and its opponents, from the earliest negotiations to the state conventions, the debate in this orleans, proposals and counterproposals, to the final vote.He neatly describes how the nea leadership misinterpreted the fears of its members, and then tried to impose its position on the convention delegates. And he talks about what the failed merger portends - both for labor unions and for american education. Mike antonucci is the director of the sacramento educational intelligence agency, which focuses on education research, analysis, and investigation. The eia reports led to articles in several left at the altar iii education week, detroit news, pittsburgh tribune-review and similar papers. Antonucci has published posts in the wall street journal, investor's business daily, american enterprise, miami herald, sacramento bee, national review west, los angeles daily news, tampa tribune, california political review, contra costa times, report card and other publications. Mike specialized in military history and intelligence before moving into education reporting. Readers wishing to contact mr. Antonucci directly can write to him at educational intelligence, p.O. Box 2047, carmichael, ca 95609 or send an email to educintel@aol.Com. The thomas b. Fordham foundation is a private foundation that supports research, publications, and action projects in the area of elementary/school reform nationally and in the dayton area. For more information, please visit our website (http://www.Edexcellence.Net) or contact us at 1015 18th street, nw, suite 300, washington, dc 20036.) This report is fully available on the foundation's portal , and hard copies can be made by calling 1-888-tbf-7474 (the only copies are free). Chester e. Finn, jr. President, thomas b. Fordham foundation, washington, dc, october 1998. 6 iv mike antonucci executive summary over a year, the 2-3 million national formation association and the 900,000 american federation of teachers came together in a vigorous merger. Negotiation. The plan was to rally the majority of us teachers under one banner for collective bargaining, political cabals, and educational policy. Absolutely all that was required was to present the plan to the representative bodies of both unions, which sanctioned the merger and set to work. Will 2 hefty unions, either of which had the de facto right to taboo education policy in congress and most state legislatures, become a general national union monopoly with all the vices and arrogance that monopolies imply? Few people noticed the debate that was going on inside nea. In just four months, the proposed merger turned from a guaranteed disaster. Moreover, that he failed to win the necessary majority in many of the votes; he failed to approach a simple majority. What's happening? And what is happening now? Nea's campaign to win votes for the principles of unity focused on the strength - and influence - of one huge union. Nea viewed the merger as a ready supply of needed reinforcements. Nea president bob chase and his staff called for solidarity between teachers and gaming. They described the proposed merger as a bold move that would pay off big. In an attempt to secure the merger, nea's leadership used the same forceful methods that won it victory in countless elections. This heavy-handed approach began to have backfires against the leaders of their state affiliates. Instead of gaining support for the principles of unity, he began to harden opposition. “It's david versus goliath,” philip rumor, president of the buffalo teachers' federation, told education week. "Nea's management and the best pr people on the phone are all lined up to shove this thing down our throats." The leaders of nea and aft faced a clear rejection of the leadership-backed initiative; a proposal for further negotiations, which was opposed by 47 percent of the nea delegates; a frustrated and emboldened opposition faction in nea with a chance of further partnerships with each other; and local aft leaders keen to highlight their differences with nea. Post-merger comments highlighted both unions' commitment to continuing negotiations. Nea convinced commentators that the merger vote was only a temporary setback. In fact, the "principles of unity" campaign and vote not only made it unlikely that the nea and the afl would merge in the near future, but could also signal a fundamental change in the nea. For the first time, the immediate future of the nea is not entirely in the hands of its national leaders and staff. For better or worse, it is in the hands of the leaders of the states opposed to the merger. No merger can take place without their support. The merger debate also demonstrated that nea can no longer function on flexible membership. Its influence on public education is also under threat. ?Altar left v introduction on july 5, 1998, sally grafentine, chairman of the national education association's election committee, stood nervously in front of 15,000 delegates, clients, and reporters. She read the results of the morning's vote. When she summed up the votes on pleasant amendments to the constitution and bylaws, the huge crowd made no sound. Everyone sat silent and motionless, waiting for the results of one vote, which could have had time for all the rest to be academic. Ms. Grafentin then said: "a proposal for a vote to take the principles of unity, which requires two out of three votes to pass, failed." The crowd erupted in applause for a full 25 seconds before union president bob chase called them to order. Ms grafentin continued: “yes, 4,091 citizens voted with 42.11 percent. Voting against: 5,624 - 57.89 percent.” The meeting exploded once again. The extent of the failure of the principles of unity, the document that proposed a merger to create the country's largest labor union, took everyone by surprise. For more than a year, the 2-3 million members of the national education association (nea) and the 900,000 members of the american federation of teachers (aft) have been in intense merger negotiations. The new organization, as it was politely named in the negotiation documents, will bring together the majority of public school teachers and educators under one banner for collective bargaining, political action and education policy. By january 1998, the framework of the agreement was arranged, and in march the unions promulgated the unity principles. Such a standard described the form that the new union would take, who would lead it, and beyond that, how its organizational structure would be created and managed. The principles received unanimous approval from the nea unity negotiating group, which included the top leaders of the national union and key officials from some of nea's largest state affiliates. Absolutely all that was required was to submit a document to the representative bodies of both unions, which then sanction the merger and start the business. The decision-making structure of the afl virtually guaranteed support for the principles. Nea, should partner with some troublemakers, and yet she has an impeccable track record in framing support for her leaders' initiatives, especially such important ones. A few compromises here over promises there and the job will be done. The unions were so sure of the final passage and uneducated about the consequences of splitting the vote that they decided that any vote on the merger would require a majority in many of them - and despite the fact that the increase in the majority was not necessary either by nea by-laws or constitutional norms. Security. Although there were reports of fast-track merger talks throughout 1997, people associated with the public education institution were taken by surprise by the announcement of a forthcoming vote. What would a giant single teacher union mean for the system? Even more worried were those on the outside - the people and companies that were pushing for education reform. Will the unions, which individually had a de facto veto over education policy developed in congress and most state legislatures, become nea and aft? ? Will the mega-union become an immovable object that reformers will fight until they are blue in the face? For a couple of months, analysts and observers have wondered—and debated—the possible impact of the merger on public education. Perhaps the union will use its increased influence to support the issues of quality teachers, high academic standards and large learning toys. Perhaps she will use her vast political machine only to wrest more spending on salaries and benefits from legislators and taxpayers. Hardly anyone noticed the debate that was going on inside nea. In just three months, the proposed merger went from a certainty to a disaster for nea's leadership. Not only did the pussies fail to win a two out of three majority; it failed to approach the simple majority. They lobbied, pressed and persuaded. They sent out "information" packets about the merger. A letter signed by mr. Chase was sent to each of the 9,700 delegates urging support for the principles. State presidents known to be in favor of the merger were harassed to give more votes to the unity side. The night before the vote, messages about the merger were left on the hotel phones of nearly every first-time delegate. However, the toys produced were easily defeated. How? And what is happening now? This report is intended to answer two such questions, as well as other questions arising from the failure of the unity principles.As a citizen who followed events as they unfolded and saw the writing on the wall back in april, i contend that the debate about merger, voting, and danger contains important recommendations for people inside and outside the public education system. The history of nea and aft have very different roots. Although the political agendas of the two national unions become less and less distinct over time, their different origins continue to cause friction between them today. Even when teachers were in the majority, nea instruction was usually dominated by administrators. The grant of a congressional charter in 1906 (and with it the exemption from property taxes in the headquarters building in the columbia area) emphasized his detachment from familiar labor issues. The only other organizations congress has ever established are the american legion, the amvets, the american mothers of war, the american national red cross, the boy scouts of america, and the american disabled veterans. For the first 104 years of its existence, nea officially opposed collective bargaining. Aft was formed in 1916 and was immediately encouraged by the american federation of labor. At first his attention was focused on labor issues o 2 mike antonucci: income, benefits, working conditions and negotiation. For decades, aft has failed to organize a plethora of teachers, only increasing its modest membership by the same percentage as the growth in the number of teachers. Professionalism vs. Unionism for years, administrators have been urging teachers to join nea to prevent our experts from practicing the collective bargaining that aft stands for. Nea gave personal attention to curriculum, education funding and teacher training. We must not forget that in 1961 the conflict between the "professionalism" of nea and the "unionism" of aft reached its apogee. In new york, the united federation of teachers, an aft affiliate led by the late a1 shanker, organized a collective vote among the city's teachers. Moreover, that teachers overwhelmingly supported collective bargaining; they also chose uft as their sole representative. The victory in new york prompted aft to seek representative elections in other states. Within the next 3 years, aft's membership nearly doubled. As the city in nature voted for the exclusivity of aft 9, nea began to reconsider the scrutiny of administrators and professional matters. Over the course of fifteen years, nea gradually invested more and more in labor issues, passed a constitution that guaranteed teachers a majority in the architecture of control, and assumed all the trappings of a union, until by 1978 the internal revenue service and the us department of labor fully recognized nea as a union. Although both unions sought to annul the other's affiliates and achieve the representation of these teachers for their own use (a process known as "raiding"), their main organizing efforts were scattered on recruiting teachers who had no representation. Aft, in an attempt to organize as many teachers as quickly as possible, invested its initial resources in major cities. He has achieved a head start in urban areas, something he retains at the present moment. But nea took up the organization like fish in water. Thanks to superior tactics—above all, aggressive lobbying in us legislatures and financial firepower—nea soon dominated teachers in generally non-urban areas, while at the same time conquering large enough urban areas to force aft to remain on the defensive. Trade unions continued to fight for members, but there were lulls in the struggle. Some branches of nea and aft joined forces, or talk of a national merger began in the 1970s. The reasons offered then were the same as they are today. The confrontation between the two alliances was considered wasteful. As nea and aft grew in size and political influence, they also gained critics and detractors. The merger was seen as an opportunity to combine services and energy. But the nea representative assembly of 1973 established three indispensable conditions: no membership in the afl-cio; guaranteed minority participation; and the use of secret ballot. At that point, the two organizations were still too different to comfortably merge, and negotiations quickly fizzled out. As the nea continued to reinvent itself as a traditional trade union, the distinctions between the few associations began to fade. Some philosophical and political conflicts remain, but the plans for nea and aft have long been closer than is widely reported.Aft's reputation as a reform-minded organization is due in no small part to the willingness of the late albert shanker (aft's president from 1974 until his death in 1997) to criticize the state diploma and personally advocate for bold reforms. However, when it came to fighting, aft and nea usually supported the same candidates, the same legislation, and the same main status quo. During the 1980s, when nea and aft were becoming very much alike, merger talks did not gain momentum due to shanker's reluctance. Shanker was a huge fish in a smaller pond aft. He had no ambition to be the number two man in the big nea. And, of course, nea was not interested there to surrender to shanker. By 1993, nea had moved a little further in terms of joining afl-cio, leaving you with the stipulation that no membership was required to join afl-cio. Talk of a merger resumed in 1994. Preliminary discussions led the 1995 nea representative assembly, annually bringing together up to ten,000 trade union delegates from all over russia, to adopt a new business clause calling for continued negotiations with aft with the eventual goal of a merger of the two organisations. . It was under this authority that the principles of unity were agreed upon. The process accelerated only after shanker's long illness (followed by his death on february 22, 1997) and the accession of sandra feldman to the presidency of aft. Feldman has not yet established himself in the national educational world. And a merger, while pushing it to second place in the short term, would effectively end up leading a new organization nearly three times the size of aft. As public education came under increasing criticism for these unsatisfactory performances, and as teachers' unions were increasingly cited as the main opposition to reform, the time seemed ripe to support the cause of the unions. The association has gained new momentum. The political agendas of the two alliances are increasingly insignificant and minimally distinguishable, but their different origins continue to cause friction. 10 left at the altar 3 negotiations the first step was to conclude a national agreement to ban raids. This is tantamount to a ceasefire between several organizations for the duration of the negotiations. The agreement entered into force on january 1, 1997 and was valid until may 31, 1998. From the very beginning, the negotiations were led by the highest government officials nea and aft. The negotiating teams met 5 times during the first half of 1997. While both sides of the deal got to know each other better, nea and aft approved 15 local branch mergers: 1 in minnesota, 2 in new mexico, 1 in kansas, and 1 in montana. However, proposed state-level mergers in new mexico, montana, and minnesota have been put on hold pending completion of national-level negotiations. Nea, in particular, didn't want mergers to change the dynamics of the negotiations as they were being negotiated. In an effort to promote good camaraderie, the negotiating groups formed the aft/nea joint council. Thirty members - 14% of all the union - were appointed by the respective leaders. However, in some efforts to ensure cooperation, the unions chose members who, as usual, supported the merger. Of the 15 councilors appointed by the nea, only two represented the states that eventually opposed the merger. All the young ladies represented large social structures. This lack of opposition points of view was a mistake that nea repeated several times. Meeting of the joint council the first meeting of the joint council (june 1997) was devoted to the selection of the required areas of joint activity. “We have tried to approach complex issues in ways that reflect common sense, millennium-tested thinking and mindsets you like, and have all stakeholders in the game,” said a joint communiqué issued by mr. Chase and ms. Feldman. The areas chosen were school discipline, school infrastructure, and the level of teachers. When mr. Chase announced the joint board's agenda at a press conference in november 1997, he stressed that it should "not be viewed in the context of a merger" but as an independent attempt to join forces with aft for the good of society. Education. Others, however, viewed the formation of the council as preliminary manual work. “If the joint board is successful in its work, it will improve the chances that the merger will happen sooner,” said adam urbansky, aft's eloquent vice president and president of the rochester teachers' association. “I think it is wiser not to marry a stranger. So think of it as an organizational form of dating." The joint nea/aft board has approved plans for a joint conference on teacher performance due in september 1998. And brought together a group of leaders and busy people to develop "innovative approaches to school funding." Other approved activities included: creating sex files about personal management; issuance of a state report on children's discipline legislation; and the formation of state joint ideas in various states. While the united council began cleaning services, union negotiating teams also met and discussed the details. Five of the 10 members at the side of nea were senior national officials and employees: president chase, vice president reg weaver, secretary treasurer dennis van ruckel, executive director don cameron, and assistant executive director evelyn temple. The three state presidents on the team were from states known to support the merger concept (new york, washington, and florida). There was no outright opposition to the mergers in the organization. At first, there was little talk of differences in political agendas, of strong philosophical convictions, or of any hefty differences of opinion on educational matters at all. "We had the same university, in the audience, the same fantasies and even the same sense of humor," said mr. Chase. From member aft!” However, there were long and protracted battles over the governance structure that the new organization would take over. Aft is made up of leading city dwellers with weak state affiliates. Many local 4 mike antonucci and presidents serve as national union officials. Aft officers can run for re-election every two years for life. His agreement uses weighted voting as reported by the affiliate. It represents a multitude of non-educational workers. And of course, aft is related to afl-cio. Nea, on the other hand, relies on strong government affiliates to provide services to local residents. Officials can only fill one elective vacancy, and there are term limits for any significant position. Voting at the congress - one modern man - one vote in a secret ballot. Only a few state branches of nea organize workers who are not related to education. And of course, nea is not related to afl-cio. At the very beginning of the discussion, it was decided that no one would lose activity due to the merger. Therefore it was necessary to find a service, not only for every worker of both unions, but for every member of the considerable permanent staff of the unions. This issue led to compromises, which ultimately helped bring down the merger. Over the course of several months, progress was made in dividing the trophies - who will manage what for how long. The afl-cio issue was harder to resolve. Remaining a member of afl-cio was aft's only absolute requirement. The new organization will be attached and no local aft member will be allowed to sort it out. The naa entered into negotiations hoping to establish a special "non-affiliated" membership with the afl-cio, where the new organization would retain the independence of the nae but establish some sort of organizational connection with the union coalition. This nuanced position did not last long, and nea was forced to take a fallback position: afl-cio membership only at the national level. State and local affiliates were free to join or not join at will. The aft negotiators agreed to this on the condition that the ultimate goal be full membership at all levels of the new organization and insisted that the leaders of the new union actively support this goal setting. Nea agreed, and for december 1997, parts of the unity agreement began to fall into place. "We expect a vote this summer" on january 21, 1998, mr. Chase and ms. Feldman sent a joint knitting progress report to government officials and staff. “We are now closer to this new unified organization than ever before,” it said. “Over the past months, after a series of intensive negotiations, our negotiating teams aft and nea have reached a conceptual agreement on a number of critical topics that need to be defined before any new organization can be created.” Then, big news. “We look forward to a private summer at the aft convention and nea representative assembly to vote on the principles that define the basis for a unified organization. The adoption of these rules will become a formal commitment to the creation of this new organization. The report outlined the various provisions agreed upon by nea and aft. These provisions, as a result, were included in the principles of unity.It also identified those issues that would not be affected by the principles (instead, left to write a new charter and charter for the medical institution, but which will have a serious impact on subsequent debate and voting. Such issues included a new contribution rate. Chase and feldman noted: “ our company hasn't talked about the national contribution rate and share of contribution that they will agree to at each level.” At the end of winter, the final touches were put on the document, and on march 11, mr. The honeymoon lasted only a matter of weeks.At the beginning of the discussion, it was decided that no one would lose a job because of the merger.12 the five principles of oneness left at the altar there were eight principles of oneness—broad axioms with varying amounts of detail as to how they would end up a large number of such features caused immediate criticism and played about an important role in the subsequent debate and vote, but only two of them were convincing enough to order an organized opposition. It was no surprise to nea senior management that the most important of these conditions was the precondition that derailed the 1973 negotiations: membership in the afl-cio. But the second detail turned out to be more important: the new organization would reduce the power of state organizations in the idea of national union policy. Stumbling block #1 - joining the afl-cio the unity principles stated: "the combined organization will be a national affiliate of the afl-cio" and what "the goal of the combined organization would be to be fully affiliated with the afl-cio at every level." The discord will satisfy state affiliates who sincerely opposed joining the afl-cio. They will not be required to join. Opponents refused to make this distinction. Their objections had two elements: the first philosophical and the second pragmatic. Mr. Chase spent more than a year addressing union members nationwide about his "new union movement" doctrine. Broadly speaking, the new union is moving away from the unions' confrontational approach to negotiation and public education towards a collaborative approach. He plays the responsibility for the quality of the product - educated students. Mr. Chase has repeatedly called industrial unions a relic of the past that is no longer suitable for today's conditions. He encouraged comparisons of the work with other white-collar professions such as law and world medicine. Many members felt that belonging to the afl-cio, the old-fashioned symbol of industrial unionism, was at odds with this new emphasis. Further, many presidents of state affiliates, especially in america with the right to work (states that do not allow mandatory union membership or representational dues as a condition of employment), are aware that afl-cio membership will cause mass exit from trade union. They feared that individual groups of teachers would take advantage of the recruitment opportunity. Bob gilchrist, president of the iowa educational association and chief opposition leader, put it lightly, if members think we're usually a union, they'll stop joining and join the pei - the iowa professional educators. They're just languishing in anticipation to make a letter." Stumbling block #2: state rights. The principles of unity centralized the operations and decision-making of the new organization far better than anything that had previously existed in nea. In order for all modern leaders of nea and aft to support the plan, the new management structure had to contain a sufficient number of high-prestige positions to do so. This leads to a compromise that was even closer to the top-heavy afl model, which has weak state affiliates. This, in turn, will reduce the relative influence of government departments and nea staff, despite which there was a guarantee of no layoffs. This largely explains how the state branch employees were so indifferent, if not hostile, to the merger plan. Nea has three national officers who are elected by the delegates of the representative assembly. The principals added four more vice presidents. These seven people will be full-time subordinates and will oversee the day-to-day running of the union. Nea has a nine-member executive committee (including three national officers) that is required seven times a year. It would be replaced by a 37-member executive council (including seven national officers) that would meet seven times a year. 6 mike antonucci 13 the key bone of contention was nea's board of directors. This body is made up of approximately 160 representatives (at least one from each state) who meet more than three times every 12 months.Through its votes, the board exercises some control over decisions made by the executive committee and national officials. In accordance with the principles of unity, the board will be dissolved in the direction of the governing body of 400 members. Meeting only three times a year, the council was to include all state branch presidents, all local branch presidents with more than 2,500 members, and other persons elected at large from the states. The real problem was the new council's lack of political power. The directives stated that the governing body "will advise, assist, and advise on policies and programs to the convention, the officers, and the executive council of the united nations." Many state branch leaders, especially those from smaller states, have found cultivation to be an attempt to silence them. The vote was less than four months away. Thousands of state affiliates had already held their state conventions and therefore could not formally debate the rules and vote on them non-bindingly before the representative assembly in what is now orleans. Mr. Chase and his staff had a plan for every state where conventions were still to come. They made personal appearances at conventions, answered questions about features, and dispelled any fears. Such a strategy would make it possible to have individual delegate votes even in difficult states. Moreover, combined with the existing advantage in the organization and supervision of debates during the period of the representative assembly, it would be sufficient to lay out 75 or an overwhelming majority of the votes of the delegates. Illinois and iowa met first. Both expressed serious doubts about this plan. President chase addressed convention delegates from both states. Vice president reg weaver, former president of the illinois education association, will join chase in illinois and start operating in the market. Political battles in congress even in state legislatures, but also in self-defense against growing public criticism. Education. Whether the analogy was to amalgamate portals or roundabouts of wagons, nea saw the amalgamation with aft as securing a ready supply of much-needed reinforcements. Chase and his staff called for the solidarity of teachers and workers. They described the proposed merger as a bold move that would pay off big. Iowa and illinois watched closely. But if it was time for the delegates to ask questions and argue, they did not assert bold, new views for tomorrow. They asked sharp ambiguities about the document they were asked to approve. They wanted subtleties and details. They asked about cost, changes in representation and policy oversight. And extremely often questions about nuts and bolts were met with vague answers. Illinois voted against the principles by a 2:1 margin. Iowa voted 3 to 1. Despite being dissatisfied with the results, nea knew for a fact that she had a working minority in a couple of difficult states. As soon as the big states start joining our company, the doubters will see the inevitability of all this. By the end of april, the results of state affiliate conventions were disappointing, but by no means bleak. Wisconsin, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, montana, and new mexico endorsed the principles. The only other official vote against the merger was in virginia, where afl-cio membership was considered anathema to a position-eligible team. Altar left 7 board vote may 2 brought a new opportunity for the merger movement. The board of directors of nea met in washington. The principles of unity were on the agenda and a recorded vote was to take place. The council, made up of representatives of the states, is a stepping stone to higher office in the nea. While representing their states, board members also look to their future in the union hierarchy. The nea leaders lobbied them relentlessly before the debate. Five hours of speeches, arguments and violent emotions followed. Then the vote. "Principles of unity" won 106 votes to 53 - exactly two-thirds of the vote. Later, some board members complained that the vote was a matter of loyalty, not politics. If the board of directors, the representative body of the state where nea's headquarters had the most influence, could pass the proposal: only by a score of 2 to 1, how would the delegates of the representative assembly hesitate?The difference was bad news, although it was not known, from nea's press release: "today, in a historic vote, the board of directors of the national education association (nea) voted overwhelmingly to recommend that nea's representative assembly approve guidelines for merging with the american federation of teachers (aft ) to create a new national organization." Mr. Chase's statement was even more exaggerated. “It was a vote about the future of our children and our nation,” he said. Alas for chase and concrete colleagues, even his modest victory was short-lived. The council meeting also included a state meeting of the michigan educational association, nea's fourth largest affiliate. Michigan is certainly one of the most pro-working states in the russian federation. But mea president julius maddox knew the views of his delegates and delivered a speech against the merger, citing afl-cio membership as his primary objection. “We don’t know for sure that there has been a lot of attention paid to how this new organization will be focused or how, in essence, to resolve conflicts at the expense of competing interests when these interests are part of the same group,” he told the audience. The next day the delegates voted more than 4 to 1 against the unity principles. Despite the bloated board vote, there were now more anti-merger delegates than pro-merger delegates. Time to panic nea went into crisis mode almost immediately. The state presidents, who, everyone knows, were in favor of the merger, were ordered to get as many votes as possible. And, like the old law enforcement officers, they did everything necessary in order to deliver pleasure. Pennsylvania education association president david j. Gondack and pennsylvania teachers federation president albert fondi sent a joint letter to their union members. “We are convinced that the union of nea and aft at the national level, and then in this situation in pennsylvania, is really necessary for the survival of the state formation and our school workers unions - maybe even for the survival of the union movement, while not against the rules and laws. The letter read. The state branch staff and some members of the national staff did not support the idea of a merger. Some thought the merger would eventually lead to cuts and layoffs (although nea vehemently denied this). Others, having spent years in the trenches fighting the afl, were reluctant to bury the hatchet. Whatever their reasons, they soon received orders from nea's chief executive, don cameron, the man in charge of personnel control. On may 14, cameron emailed national and state staff, where he responded to a challenge about what position nea and affiliates should take on the merger. “Nea is not neutral on this issue,” cameron wrote. “So the employees of nea too. Nea strongly supports and strongly advocates for the adoption of the principles of unity by delegates to the 1998 nea representative assembly. So, staff.” 15 when it was time for the delegates to ask questions and argue, the young ladies did not assert bold, new visions for the future. They wanted subtleties and details. 8 mike antonucci cameron made it very clear that employees need to put their personal emotions aside or follow the game plan. “Therefore,” he wrote, “i expect there will be nea workers, in which case the available perspectives can be applied to improve the posture and unity policy of nea.” The hard approach started to have unwanted events. Instead of gaining support for the principles of unity, he began to harden the opposition. The relentless pressure from the kin of the national headquarters has brought about something almost unprecedented in this nea. Opponents began to approach, then retreat. The first signs were on the unity message board. Nea has created an electronic suggestion board on a personal web platform for members to post comments on the unity principles. In 10 weeks, approximately five hundred messages and responses were posted. The messages were about 10 to 1 against the merger. Anti-merger affiliate officers began preaching opposition to their members. Bob gilchrist, president of the iowa educational association, has made countering mergers a major part of his campaign for a niche on the nea executive committee. Michael johnson, president of nea's second-largest affiliate, the new jersey educational association, sent messages to new jersey delegates listing the reasons why they opposed the merger. The michigan education association voted to allocate $2,000 to the anti-merger campaign. There were pockets of strong anti-merger sentiment within the pro-merger states themselves.Nea's new york branch voted in favor of the merger, and its largest local branch, buffalo, voted against it. Philip rumor, president of the buffalo teachers federation, sent an open letter to colleagues. “We are told that the sinister forces are so great that every person needs to unite,” he wrote. “How many times in history has this led to terrible results because the proposed solution was wrong?” Anti-merger party organizes the buzz from state affiliates was mounting, but it could have come to nothing if the anti-merger state presidents hadn't agreed to coordinate the strategy. Twice before the representative assembly, gilchrist, johnson, and rumor clashed with many other state presidents. Calling itself the coalition for democratic principles (cdp), this opposition faction planned a campaign strategy, floor debates, and most importantly, an alternative to the unity principles. The plan, titled "unity without merger," will build on the joint stages of the merger negotiation process. The no-raid agreement will be extended, the aft-nea joint council will be updated and the 2 teachers unions will look for new areas to work together. The script will be submitted as a brand new business item if the merger vote fails. The anti-mergers had momentum, but they knew they were up against it. "It's david versus goliath," rumor said in an interview with education week. "The whole leadership nea that the best pr people are lining up to shove this thing down our throats." By june 15, the state congresses were completed. The states, representing 34 percent of the delegates' votes, were pro-mergers. The states, representing 32 percent of the delegate vote, opposed the mergers. The rest did not take a formal position. The handwriting was already on the wall. The coalition for democratic principles already had almost all the votes needed to fail the merger, which were solid. States such as pennsylvania and ohio, which are of fundamental importance to all the hopes of chase and his unity groups (as the proponents of the merger called themselves), could not get resolutions of support through their conventions. Pro-merger americas such as california, wisconsin, georgia, and new york still had a large minority of anti-mergers. For the merger to take place, an electoral miracle had to occur. “It's david versus goliath. All of nea's management and the phone's best pr people are lining up to shove everyone down their throats. Left at the altar 9 but nea has done election miracles before, not too long ago in california, where she helped close a 50-point deficit to defeat proposition 226, a "wage protection" initiative that would restrict the practice of automatically deducting pac contributions from union members' wages. A unity caucus based on the influence of nea headquarters will do its best. Mr. Chase authorized a special mailing to each delegate. The letter calls for a vote for the "principles of unity" in the role of preventing "extremists" who seek to control public education. “I feel an urgency,” chase wrote. “Property rights, political participation rights, retirement strategies, and health care videos are being attacked by close political and economic ideologues. Well organized, well funded interest groups want to privatize education. We can't let that happen." While on a "campaign trip to kentucky, chase read a list of 'extremist' organizations compiled by nea staff (for example, americans for tax reform and the alexis de tocqueville institute) to illustrate the nature of the threat to a group of kentucky delegates. . Nea also worked with the media. Chase told the associated press on june 8, "even though there are some who are against it, there can be no reason why people are unable to get a two-thirds vote." He called a press conference in washington on june 10 to explain the voting procedures. “We are confident that we will indeed get these two out of three votes,” he said. "We're meticulous about it." There was no such madness on the aft side. The aft executive board voted 29 to 0 in favor of the unity principles. A few lone voices in oklahoma city and fairfax county, virginia, spoke out against it, but it seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Other aft merger opponents just lay low hoping nea would vote against it so the pussies wouldn't have to speak out. “The afl is in the business of reprisals,” one prominent afl leader told me. After spending months preventing the vote, i was baffled by nea's sense of certainty. On june 8, i explicitly predicted in the ela communiqué that the merger would fail. “In fact,” i wrote, “there is a chance that the porn bunny won’t get a simple majority.”Over the following weeks i studied, researched and interviewed. Shortly before the convention, i wrote: “given all the information at this disposal, ela estimates current support for mergers among delegates at 53.5 percent. The next (admittedly unscientific) step is to assess how much of the opposition is "soft" and perhaps converted to real pressure to be exerted by the national leadership, including those in other state factions. Eia predicts a final 60-40 votes in favor of the merger at nea's representative assembly on july 5, which is around 650 delegates, short of the required majority in many of them." Mark simon, president of the montgomery county educational association in maryland, was a strong supporter of bob chase and the image of unity: "i think people will form their response at the convention," he said. He didn't know how right he was. The maryland delegation was divided when it arrived in fresh orleans for independence day weekend, as were more than a dozen others. The unity side still had time to fix things. They had a committed cadre of activists to advance the principles. But they went against opponents armed with all boring equipment and tactics. For every button, poster, pamphlet, and rally put together by the unity caucus, the coalition for democratic principles had its own. At a morning press briefing shortly before the opening of the convention, chase expressed optimism about the merger vote. "Momentum is eric 4^10. Mike antonucci is building positively and i'm confident in the preview," he said. He rather posed for the media. This morning, keith geiger, former president of the michigan educational association and nea, delivered a pep talk to michigan delegates in support of the merger. When he finished, the delegates held a straw vote. Results: one vote for the merger, almost 500 against. Chase's keynote speech addressed 9,700 delegates and touched every known button. “Nea will not allow extremists to colonize the state for their own ideological purposes,” he said. “Nea will not allow free market forces to exploit adults and kids from urban areas for profit. And nea will not allow our opponents to silence unions and vilify educators.” In case he got to the principles of oneness, he tried the historical, "moment of fate" approach. “These requirements are the functional equivalent of the declaration of independence of the motherland. Once these principles set out the aims and ideals of a new combined company, or lay out the foundations for how the new organization would serve,” he told delegates. Into the larger afl-cio empire. He also likened the principles to the louisiana purchase, no secret our nation's rulers are "meet with the possibility of obtaining a one-third expansion of their planet." Chase used a selective quote: "a professor named bruce cooper said, 'a big union can solve big problems in big ways. He would be in a position to select three large national projects for the improvement of schools for toddlers each year. For example, universal preschool education. Computer on any desktop. Literacy for every student by the third grade. Chase did not mention that, in addition, professor cooper said of the proposed merger: “a single union could easily become an oligarchy with centralized power, the re-election of the same leaders term after term, and the weakening of dissent in the union ranks. Nea, who has proven herself so adept at shaping the public education debate, has misinterpreted the concerns of her individual target group, the member delegates. While the delegates wanted to know how the governing body and the executive board would interact, chase asked them to come together "for the sake of the children." How will history judge us? Chase concluded. “How are we going to judge ourselves, how can we not take advantage of such a problem of fate?” Contenders speak shortly in the morning (and after most of the press had left), the speeches of the candidates for the nea executive committee were heard. Opposing the two partners was bob gilchrist, president of the iowa educational association. Gilchrist was a leader against the mergers, and the delegate's reaction to his speech was a harbinger of things to come. He began by saying, "i don't support the oneness principles, and i don't think it's necessary to buy." He was interrupted by thunderous applause. “Of course this [belonging to afl-cio] means for nea officers or your civil servants. I want you to focus on the people in your own [school] building,” gilchrist told delegates. "A couple of my friends said, 'bob, you know this merger was going pretty well until you guys from iowa and a bunch of other states got involved.You're just the proverbial skunk at the picnic." Well, i guess i'm a bit of a skunk, but this deal had its own scent," he told the cheering crowd. “These elections are not a career step for me,” he concluded. “This association is not my career, it is a service project. My profession is teaching." Gilchrist's popular populism captivated a large number of delegates who, until this moment, did not know who he was. The first slippery time for the proponents of the merger occurred when the results of nea misinterpreted the concerns of member delegates. The moment the delegates wanted to be aware of how the governing body and the executive board would interact, chase asked them to unite "for the sake of the children." 18 left at the altar 1 1 elections to the executive committee announced. Removing an incumbent president from a chosen elected office is nea almost impossible, and gilchrist failed to perform a miracle. But he received 4,253 votes—a full 45.1 percent. This was told by the stunned faces of many nea employees (not seen by the press). For unity to take place, it must be supported by more than 1,100 gilchrist voters. However, on the one hand, voting was useful. Now nea knew exactly how high a hill she would have to climb. There was a day to score 1100 votes. Debate at the club the afternoon debate here was essential to the unity caucus. “This is a turning point for the history of public education and for us,” chase said, opening the debate. At the microphones speakers alternated the advantages and disadvantages of the principles of oneness. Initially, the emotional advantage was on the side of the opponents of the merger. Jerry williams of delaware was the first anti-merger speaker. She spoke of her fears that a small state like delaware would lose favor with a larger company. She choked back tears as she told the crowd, "i urge you to vote against the unity principles and not lose my vote." However, if one of the speakers must be admitted to have made a splash, it is mary washington, president of the louisiana educators' association. Speaking on behalf of the delegation of louisiana, ms. Washington said that we are now being given a set of principles that satirizes our core beliefs.” Focusing on the lack of policy-making power of the governing body, the new organization that replaced nea's board of directors, washington said the change to an advisory body was "unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable!" The assembly roared as she finished. The pro-merger side fielded all of its heavy guns. Affiliate state presidents from california, florida, and new york took turns at the microphone, pleading and pleading for a desire to turn the tide. Compared voting against the principles of unity to voting against the declaration of independence. During all of this, bob chase seemed overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition. The discussion was heated, but decent. Closed debate voting went smoothly, in just two hours and 34 speakers (17 from either side). This showed that neither side believed that further debate would hardly sway anyone. Finally, voting. Polling stations were open on july 5 for three hours. As delegates went to vote, the new york times headline read: "teachers see closed vote on big merger." An article by stephen greenhouse noted: “even the leaders of an educational association of two to three million members who are feverishly in favor of a merger understand that sunday's vote can be a cliffhanger and that they can not get two votes. - Thirds required for confirmation. At 12:30 pm, the stunning results were announced. The cliff, nea hung here, collapsed. Actually it was a landslide. Over 5,600 delegates voted against the unity principles. About 1,400 delegates who did not vote for gilchrist voted against the merger. As expected, both chase and american federation of teachers president sandra feldman released statements promising a continued partnership between the two teacher unions. At a press conference following the vote, a visibly shaken chase denied that the vote showed that nea's management was not in touch with the members. "No," he said, "i don't think it means anything else. In fact, after yesterday's discussion about eric 12 mike antonucci 19, i think we are fully aware that our members want to achieve unity between the two organizations.” When asked if he or the staff should do things differently, chase replied, "i'm not going to assume anything." Chase emphasized that the unfortunate loss did not affect his ability to lead the union. He also did not believe that before you would have any political consequences. He is not right.The future leadership of nea preempted the coalition for democratic principles by supporting a proposal for subsequent merger talks. Introduced by minnesota educational association president judy schaubach, the new business item called for polling and analysis of the merger vote, followed by new negotiations led by nea headquarters. This effectively undermined the coalition, which put forward its own announcement calling on a group of us and local leaders to review the results and outline principles for all new negotiations. This was followed by a three-hour debate—longer than the debate that preceded the merger vote. Having won the battle for the merger, the coalition tried to occupy the territory of their opponents. It met with fierce resistance. As the debate raged over afl affiliation and gearboxes, mergers, negotiators, gangs, tradesmen and dozens of similar elements, the delegates, among other things, tried to determine one thing: would there be a change of power in nea? The leadership of the nva in its work with the predecessor states took the usual position of defending the status quo. The cdp advocated for states' rights and the decentralization of power. Bob heisman, president of the dlinois education association and chief of cdp leaders, opposed schaubach's merger proposal. “We argue that this kind of duplication of the difficulties that led to the defeat of the principles of unity,” he said. Bob gilchrist of iowa seized on the provision that state affiliates would be "informed of developments." “It says here that we will be informed,” he told delegates. “I have been informed. My job is to participate. A vote on schaubach's proposal failed and a similar vote was contested. So, a rare roll-call vote of nea was held. After a long break during which the delegates' votes were recorded, the results were announced. By a vote of 53% to 47%, the delegates chose the schaubach plan over the coalition for democratic principles' "unity without merger" proposal. About 1,500 delegates walked out of the classroom and missed the vote. The margin of victory was 48 1 votes. The opposing merger was only able to add a certain amendment, a detailed list of difficulties that needed to be addressed in the merger negotiation process. Trying to soften her embarrassment at yesterday's vote, nea trumpeted short-sightedly about individual "victory." Nea's public relations staff sent out a press release saying: "after a vigorous three-hour debate, with the help of nearly 10,000 delegates, nea members overwhelmingly voted to merge the two organizations to better serve children and educate." The statement managed to squeeze in "overwhelmingly" but again, the nearly equal gap between competing proposals is not mentioned. Both parties expressed support for the merger. The proposal that was accepted confirmed nea's "historic commitment to the concept of unity with aft". But the cdp's alternative proposal affirmed "nea's historic ambition to create a single national organization for all educators." Is not only and the same, because in aft there is a significant minority of non-educators. This suggests support for a merger with aft education workers, but not through the rest. The cdp grant also referred to nea and afl-cio as distinct, independent entities." If the debate were only about merger talks, it would not make sense to merge the two competing proposals. This would provide the best chance for a possible majority of many of the votes. But the nea leaders saw the cdp proposal as a threat to their own power. That's why they shut him up. Aft responds nea's vote has stirred up cinema among previously silent aft delegates. Meeting 14 days later in new orleans, the delegates highlighted their afl-cio affiliation. “The devil is in the details, and the devil is in the nea,” said ivan steinberg of the jersey city federation of college teachers. “I am not a manager. I'm a teacher. Worker. No smarter than a plumber. Steinberg received a standing ovation and the crowd applauded as he shouted out, “we are never an academic organization! We are a union! Union! Union! The chant grew: “union! Union! Union! The subsequent (albeit now meaningless) vote was widely reported as 1982 to 46 in unity principles arbitration. But reporters didn't bother asking why the vote was announced as "one person, one vote" when aft practices weighted voting. The media also didn't get a chance to explain why the 1,500 aft delegates didn't vote. Not like in nea, fears of a merger with aft no longer led to an organized uprising. The structure of aft makes such opposition difficult, and aft dissidents had the advantage of waiting to see what nea would do.Without the merger, aft is forever relegated to a distant second position in the battle for teacher members. In public schools, where aft reigns, the greatest difficulties with public education. At first, aft will feel the weight of harsh prescriptive measures. Assuming it doesn't go back to raiding local citizens with nea (limited benefit experience), aft is likely to expand its efforts to equip workers overseas with public education or only marginally associated with it. Higher education and private education may also face increased efforts to organize aft. The leaders of nea and aft returned to washington, d.C. With an unprecedented reversal of a leadership-backed initiative; a proposal for follow-up negotiations, which was rejected by 47 percent of the nea delegates; a frustrated and emboldened opposition faction in nea; and local aft leaders keen to highlight their differences with nea. The trade unions somehow managed to wrest from the jaws of defeat ... The fruits of another defeat. Conclusion "for nea leaders, stating all that the vote will remain curious" was a great clear indication of how out of touch they were with delegates and phone members across russia. This is not a quote from a trade union critic. This is the official statement of the dlinua education association. “The lesson here was the fact that nea should listen more closely to the states and sparkling associations and heed their advice,” said tf.A president bob heisman. Of course, many union leaders in the past have been able to characterize nea's leadership as "absent", but never publicly or in any way before has this leader been applauded for such a stance. Post-merger analysis highlighted the commitment of nea and aft to continue negotiations. The local nature of some of the reasons against the merger (the average member hardly cares much about a weighted delegate vote or secret ballot) convinced commentators that the merger vote was a mere temporary setback. Some even suggest that the removal of the taboo on state mergers in the new proposal increases the likelihood of a national merger. 21 14 mike antonucci in fact, the unity principles campaign and vote not only made it unlikely that nea and aft would merge any time soon, but could also signal a fundamental change in nea. The internal division of nea must not be underestimated by the crushing defeat of the plan - any plan - designed, developed, promoted and vigorously lobbied by the national office of nea. The organized opposition not only fought against the authorities, but also won. Today, the delegates who voted against the principles of unity are not debating what the next merger plan should look like. They discuss the relationship between the national union and its state affiliates. “The rank and file were organized and fought with the equipment,” said one massachusetts delegate. “The leadership wants more, at any cost and at any cost will subvert the will of the majority.” The delegate from indiana added: “it is not easy to imagine how the members of nea could elect a group of leaders more prone to mergers. They were selling; heroes didn't buy." One of the mostmost famousmost famous popular buttons found at nea conventions reads "i am nea". Talk about “a car and a “drastically changed” one reflects either a new attitude of the delegates, or one that has long been hushed up. Employees also expressed their disagreement. Chuck agerstrand, president of the domestic union representing federal workers, informed his members of the follow-up proposal: “nea's leadership, through parliamentary maneuvering, was able to secure a new business clause that authorized continued negotiations. However, it is fair to say that the bulk of the delegates were overly unhappy with where the nea leadership maneuvered with the adoption of the nbi-1,” he wrote. Such talk of "us against them" had never before been so heard in nea. Even if the merger of nea and aft occurs within the optimal five to ten years, the fear of a monopoly alliance seems to have died. An attempt to combine two unions together leads to fragmentation of one of them. The more insistently nea demands a merger with aft, the more effectively it repels anti-merger affiliates. And if he succeeds in overcoming the opposition, nea may gain 900,000 aft members only to lose 900,000 nea members. After nea adopted a uniform fee structure in 1972 requiring members to join local, state, and natural unions, the missouri teachers association withdrew from nea. Today it remains the largest teacher union in missouri. The largest teaching companies in texas and georgia are also independent from nea, never from aft. On a controversial topic: like merging with aft and joining afl-cio, nea risks ousting entire affiliates from its personal orbit.If enough of them drop out of membership, they will presumably be able to form their own national union - a big nea that doesn't involve afl-cio. Whether this is reasonable or not is unclear. The current split at the merger into nea, or at least the hypothetical separation of branches and members, does not portend an ideological split. Teachers' unions - whether nea, aft, united or divided - will continue to push for increased spending on public education, and various protections for those members. It is safe to recall that in some states public teacher organizations may appear even more politically powerful and coercive, while in other states teacher unions will become more flexible and receptive to partnership. Who is sitting not a road user? For the first time, nea's immediate future is not in the hands of its national leaders and staff. For better or worse, it is in the hands of the anti-merger affiliate leaders, the coalition for democratic principles. The debate and vote on the principles of unity proved that no merger could take place without their support. What will people do? If they are denied merger talks, will they expand their agenda to include a broader range of state law issues”? Will they run a candidate against bob chase next planting season? Or will they sit quietly and wait for the principles of oneness? If he manages to overcome resistance, nea has the opportunity to gain 900,000 aft members only to lose 900,000 nea members. Left at the altar 15 how will nea react? Will it make sincere efforts to adapt to the coalition? Or will he just try to co-opt his leaders one by one? Nea will change - by choice or by force. However, the answers to such questions will tell us what kind of organization it will be. They will also determine whether teacher unions are part of the public education problem or part of the solution. A review of nea's external communications by the kamber group in 1997 concluded: “the public war and nea live in the forces of crisis. And all that will be needed is a purposeful, crisis-oriented mode of operation.” In a march 1997 letter to wisconsin education association board president terry craney, nea president bob chase wrote, “nea has a solid, trustworthy, and well-deserved reputation as a trade union and political force. We have worked meticulously to win our trade union and political reputation, and so far it has served us more comfortably. However, according to polling, critics, friends, the media, and beyond that our own members, nea does not provide elements that could come close to being the strongest and most credible voice in the education reform debate. This reality for nea is not only unsettling, but also dangerous for public education. Without a strong, credible voice in our arena, nea is incapable of continuing to defend public education; if we can't protect public education, we can't protect our members and their jobs." Teachers' unions are an integral part of the democratic party's donor and electoral base, but this is the first time we've seen democrats ready to support the reforms unions oppose. Step on the road to vouchers. Measures aimed at helping mothers and fathers of children from individual schools will at any moment arouse resistance from nea. Today, senator robert torricelli (d-nj), who received direct cash donations from both nea and aft during his 1994 senatorial campaign, is the main sponsor of the expansion of the formation savings account, which has received significant bipartisan support. Former us rep. Floyd flake (d-ny) is a prominent proponent of school vouchers, indicating the concept's growing appeal to the african american community. Senator john kerry (d-massachusetts) recently called for tenure reform. Homeschooling and combination in catholic schools is rapidly increasing. Charter schools have taken the nation by storm. The public demands accountability and the highest possible standards. Should nea - even combined nea/aft - use these forces? The merger debate has shown that nea can no longer run on flexible memberships. Its impact on public education is also under threat. The merger debate showed that nea would no longer be able to signal on flexible membership. Its impact on public education is also being placed under attack. 23 16 mike antonucci o erlc thomas b. C/0rdhm1 f ^ soundation ultstoe the b 1 the thomas b. Fordham foundation 1015 18th street, n.W • suite 300 • washington, d.C. 20036 phone: (202) 223-5452 • fax: (202) 223-9226 http: ii www. Is superiority. Net to make publications: 1-888-tbf-7474 (single copies are free) 24 best available copy us department of education ottlca of educational rataarch and improwamanl (oerl) educ atlonal raaourcaa information cantor (eric) femes! Notice broadcast base this document is subject to a signed "reproduction consent (general)" form (search for file on the eric network) covering all or classes of documents from the source organization and therefore does not warrant a "special document" permission. Such a document is federally funded*, or supplied under its own reproduction license, or otherwise in the public domain, and naturally reproduced by eric without a signed reproduction permission form (either "special crust" or "quilt").

Document summary ed 426 064 tm 029 283 author title institution publishing date note available in pub type journal cit edrs prices description identifiers antonucci, steam guard desktop mike is gone at the altar: the merging of teacher unions and the opportunity for education reform. Thomas b. Fordham foundation, washington dc. 1998-10-00 24r. Thomas b. Fordham foundation, 1015 18th street nw, office 300, washington dc 20036; tel: 888-823-7474 (toll-free); website: http://www.Edexcellence.Net (single copies are free). Collected works - series (022) -- reports - descriptive (141) fordham report; v2 nlo october 1998. Mf01/pc01 plus postage. ♦ Collective agreement; history of education; educational policy; primary secondary education; labor relations; ♦ mergers; policy making; * association of teachers; members of the union; *unions ♦american federation of teachers; *national education association summary for over a year, a number of one million members of the national education association (nea) and 900,000 members of the american federation of teachers (aft) have been negotiating a merger. The plan was to unite american teachers into one union to establish collective bargaining, political cliques, and educational policy. This report gives a detailed picture of the maneuvers of the union winners and their opponents, as well as the final vote that rejected the proposal. The report contains: the history of nea and aft - professionalism against unions; negotiations - a meeting of the joint council; unity principles - afl-cio membership, state rights; debate; vote; and the future nea. (Sld) ************************************************** ******** ****************************** * the reproductions provided by edrs are considered to be the best they can be. Be * made from the original document. Tm029283 t 3" vo o vo cn q w m thomas b. Ordham oundation outside the box permission to reproduce and release this material to the public has been granted by the u.S. Department of education office of educational research and improvement education resources posts ^ center (eric) /fthis document has been reproduced in this □ minor changes have been made to improve playback quality • the views or opinions expressed in this policy do not need to reflect the official position or policy of oeri mike antonucci, october 1998. O eric 2 (/ordham (report, vol. 2, no. 10, october 1998, left at the altar. Merger of teacher unions and perspectives on education reform, mike antonucci 4- ■ - thomas b. T# ordham oundation outs/of the box contents foreword by chester e. Finn, jr. Page iii executive summary page v introduction page 1 history page 2 negotiations page 4 unity principles page 6 debate page 7 go slashing page 10 futu re page 1-3 conclusion page 14 4 o eric left at the altar i foreword education reformers often see teacher unions as the ultimate wealthy barrier to such upheavals. In fact, unions have come under fire recently as stubborn, self-serving defenders of an unsatisfactory status quo. In response to both this criticism and the acceleration of reforms, they undertook to strengthen. An important difference in this direction was the attempt to merge the two main unions: the national education association (nea), with two to three million members, and the american federation of teachers (aft), with 900,000 members. Although their romance was not a secret, the educational world was surprised by the announcement that a formal agreement was about to be struck in july 1998, when delegates to the conventions of both unions were asked to vote on the principles of the merger. Once these votes were set, observers began to speculate about the impact of a single giant teachers' union on education reform, as if approval of the merger was a done deal. One observer who did not take this approval for granted was mike antonucci of the educational intelligence agency, who has been closely studying nea and aft for years and whose insight and perseverance in this difficult task is astonishing. We asked mike to report on the merger vote and bring his considerable research and analytical skills to the historical background. When nea's national convention delegates arrived in new orleans to vote on the merger plan, mike was there to watch, listen and ask questions. In case those delegates flatly rejected the proposed merger, mike had a personal chance to explain why. And then mike antonucci's report gives the man a candid account of the maneuvers of the union recommendation and its opponents, from the earliest negotiations to the state conventions, the debate in this orleans, proposals and counterproposals, to the final vote.He neatly describes how the nea leadership misinterpreted the fears of its members, and then tried to impose its position on the convention delegates. And he talks about what the failed merger portends - both for labor unions and for american education. Mike antonucci is the director of the sacramento educational intelligence agency, which focuses on education research, analysis, and investigation. The eia reports led to articles in several left at the altar iii education week, detroit news, pittsburgh tribune-review and similar papers. Antonucci has published posts in the wall street journal, investor's business daily, american enterprise, miami herald, sacramento bee, national review west, los angeles daily news, tampa tribune, california political review, contra costa times, report card and other publications. Mike specialized in military history and intelligence before moving into education reporting. Readers wishing to contact mr. Antonucci directly can write to him at educational intelligence, p.O. Box 2047, carmichael, ca 95609 or send an email to educintel@aol.Com. The thomas b. Fordham foundation is a private foundation that supports research, publications, and action projects in the area of elementary/school reform nationally and in the dayton area. For more information, please visit our website (http://www.Edexcellence.Net) or contact us at 1015 18th street, nw, suite 300, washington, dc 20036.) This report is fully available on the foundation's portal , and hard copies can be made by calling 1-888-tbf-7474 (the only copies are free). Chester e. Finn, jr. President, thomas b. Fordham foundation, washington, dc, october 1998. 6 iv mike antonucci executive summary over a year, the 2-3 million national formation association and the 900,000 american federation of teachers came together in a vigorous merger. Negotiation. The plan was to rally the majority of us teachers under one banner for collective bargaining, political cabals, and educational policy. Absolutely all that was required was to present the plan to the representative bodies of both unions, which sanctioned the merger and set to work. Will 2 hefty unions, either of which had the de facto right to taboo education policy in congress and most state legislatures, become a general national union monopoly with all the vices and arrogance that monopolies imply? Few people noticed the debate that was going on inside nea. In just four months, the proposed merger turned from a guaranteed disaster. Moreover, that he failed to win the necessary majority in many of the votes; he failed to approach a simple majority. What's happening? And what is happening now? Nea's campaign to win votes for the principles of unity focused on the strength - and influence - of one huge union. Nea viewed the merger as a ready supply of needed reinforcements. Nea president bob chase and his staff called for solidarity between teachers and gaming. They described the proposed merger as a bold move that would pay off big. In an attempt to secure the merger, nea's leadership used the same forceful methods that won it victory in countless elections. This heavy-handed approach began to have backfires against the leaders of their state affiliates. Instead of gaining support for the principles of unity, he began to harden opposition. “It's david versus goliath,” philip rumor, president of the buffalo teachers' federation, told education week. "Nea's management and the best pr people on the phone are all lined up to shove this thing down our throats." The leaders of nea and aft faced a clear rejection of the leadership-backed initiative; a proposal for further negotiations, which was opposed by 47 percent of the nea delegates; a frustrated and emboldened opposition faction in nea with a chance of further partnerships with each other; and local aft leaders keen to highlight their differences with nea. Post-merger comments highlighted both unions' commitment to continuing negotiations. Nea convinced commentators that the merger vote was only a temporary setback. In fact, the "principles of unity" campaign and vote not only made it unlikely that the nea and the afl would merge in the near future, but could also signal a fundamental change in the nea. For the first time, the immediate future of the nea is not entirely in the hands of its national leaders and staff. For better or worse, it is in the hands of the leaders of the states opposed to the merger. No merger can take place without their support. The merger debate also demonstrated that nea can no longer function on flexible membership. Its influence on public education is also under threat. ?Altar left v introduction on july 5, 1998, sally grafentine, chairman of the national education association's election committee, stood nervously in front of 15,000 delegates, clients, and reporters. She read the results of the morning's vote. When she summed up the votes on pleasant amendments to the constitution and bylaws, the huge crowd made no sound. Everyone sat silent and motionless, waiting for the results of one vote, which could have had time for all the rest to be academic. Ms. Grafentin then said: "a proposal for a vote to take the principles of unity, which requires two out of three votes to pass, failed." The crowd erupted in applause for a full 25 seconds before union president bob chase called them to order. Ms grafentin continued: “yes, 4,091 citizens voted with 42.11 percent. Voting against: 5,624 - 57.89 percent.” The meeting exploded once again. The extent of the failure of the principles of unity, the document that proposed a merger to create the country's largest labor union, took everyone by surprise. For more than a year, the 2-3 million members of the national education association (nea) and the 900,000 members of the american federation of teachers (aft) have been in intense merger negotiations. The new organization, as it was politely named in the negotiation documents, will bring together the majority of public school teachers and educators under one banner for collective bargaining, political action and education policy. By january 1998, the framework of the agreement was arranged, and in march the unions promulgated the unity principles. Such a standard described the form that the new union would take, who would lead it, and beyond that, how its organizational structure would be created and managed. The principles received unanimous approval from the nea unity negotiating group, which included the top leaders of the national union and key officials from some of nea's largest state affiliates. Absolutely all that was required was to submit a document to the representative bodies of both unions, which then sanction the merger and start the business. The decision-making structure of the afl virtually guaranteed support for the principles. Nea, should partner with some troublemakers, and yet she has an impeccable track record in framing support for her leaders' initiatives, especially such important ones. A few compromises here over promises there and the job will be done. The unions were so sure of the final passage and uneducated about the consequences of splitting the vote that they decided that any vote on the merger would require a majority in many of them - and despite the fact that the increase in the majority was not necessary either by nea by-laws or constitutional norms. Security. Although there were reports of fast-track merger talks throughout 1997, people associated with the public education institution were taken by surprise by the announcement of a forthcoming vote. What would a giant single teacher union mean for the system? Even more worried were those on the outside - the people and companies that were pushing for education reform. Will the unions, which individually had a de facto veto over education policy developed in congress and most state legislatures, become nea and aft? ? Will the mega-union become an immovable object that reformers will fight until they are blue in the face? For a couple of months, analysts and observers have wondered—and debated—the possible impact of the merger on public education. Perhaps the union will use its increased influence to support the issues of quality teachers, high academic standards and large learning toys. Perhaps she will use her vast political machine only to wrest more spending on salaries and benefits from legislators and taxpayers. Hardly anyone noticed the debate that was going on inside nea. In just three months, the proposed merger went from a certainty to a disaster for nea's leadership. Not only did the pussies fail to win a two out of three majority; it failed to approach the simple majority. They lobbied, pressed and persuaded. They sent out "information" packets about the merger. A letter signed by mr. Chase was sent to each of the 9,700 delegates urging support for the principles. State presidents known to be in favor of the merger were harassed to give more votes to the unity side. The night before the vote, messages about the merger were left on the hotel phones of nearly every first-time delegate. However, the toys produced were easily defeated. How? And what is happening now? This report is intended to answer two such questions, as well as other questions arising from the failure of the unity principles.As a citizen who followed events as they unfolded and saw the writing on the wall back in april, i contend that the debate about merger, voting, and danger contains important recommendations for people inside and outside the public education system. The history of nea and aft have very different roots. Although the political agendas of the two national unions become less and less distinct over time, their different origins continue to cause friction between them today. Even when teachers were in the majority, nea instruction was usually dominated by administrators. The grant of a congressional charter in 1906 (and with it the exemption from property taxes in the headquarters building in the columbia area) emphasized his detachment from familiar labor issues. The only other organizations congress has ever established are the american legion, the amvets, the american mothers of war, the american national red cross, the boy scouts of america, and the american disabled veterans. For the first 104 years of its existence, nea officially opposed collective bargaining. Aft was formed in 1916 and was immediately encouraged by the american federation of labor. At first his attention was focused on labor issues o 2 mike antonucci: income, benefits, working conditions and negotiation. For decades, aft has failed to organize a plethora of teachers, only increasing its modest membership by the same percentage as the growth in the number of teachers. Professionalism vs. Unionism for years, administrators have been urging teachers to join nea to prevent our experts from practicing the collective bargaining that aft stands for. Nea gave personal attention to curriculum, education funding and teacher training. We must not forget that in 1961 the conflict between the "professionalism" of nea and the "unionism" of aft reached its apogee. In new york, the united federation of teachers, an aft affiliate led by the late a1 shanker, organized a collective vote among the city's teachers. Moreover, that teachers overwhelmingly supported collective bargaining; they also chose uft as their sole representative. The victory in new york prompted aft to seek representative elections in other states. Within the next 3 years, aft's membership nearly doubled. As the city in nature voted for the exclusivity of aft 9, nea began to reconsider the scrutiny of administrators and professional matters. Over the course of fifteen years, nea gradually invested more and more in labor issues, passed a constitution that guaranteed teachers a majority in the architecture of control, and assumed all the trappings of a union, until by 1978 the internal revenue service and the us department of labor fully recognized nea as a union. Although both unions sought to annul the other's affiliates and achieve the representation of these teachers for their own use (a process known as "raiding"), their main organizing efforts were scattered on recruiting teachers who had no representation. Aft, in an attempt to organize as many teachers as quickly as possible, invested its initial resources in major cities. He has achieved a head start in urban areas, something he retains at the present moment. But nea took up the organization like fish in water. Thanks to superior tactics—above all, aggressive lobbying in us legislatures and financial firepower—nea soon dominated teachers in generally non-urban areas, while at the same time conquering large enough urban areas to force aft to remain on the defensive. Trade unions continued to fight for members, but there were lulls in the struggle. Some branches of nea and aft joined forces, or talk of a national merger began in the 1970s. The reasons offered then were the same as they are today. The confrontation between the two alliances was considered wasteful. As nea and aft grew in size and political influence, they also gained critics and detractors. The merger was seen as an opportunity to combine services and energy. But the nea representative assembly of 1973 established three indispensable conditions: no membership in the afl-cio; guaranteed minority participation; and the use of secret ballot. At that point, the two organizations were still too different to comfortably merge, and negotiations quickly fizzled out. As the nea continued to reinvent itself as a traditional trade union, the distinctions between the few associations began to fade. Some philosophical and political conflicts remain, but the plans for nea and aft have long been closer than is widely reported.Aft's reputation as a reform-minded organization is due in no small part to the willingness of the late albert shanker (aft's president from 1974 until his death in 1997) to criticize the state diploma and personally advocate for bold reforms. However, when it came to fighting, aft and nea usually supported the same candidates, the same legislation, and the same main status quo. During the 1980s, when nea and aft were becoming very much alike, merger talks did not gain momentum due to shanker's reluctance. Shanker was a huge fish in a smaller pond aft. He had no ambition to be the number two man in the big nea. And, of course, nea was not interested there to surrender to shanker. By 1993, nea had moved a little further in terms of joining afl-cio, leaving you with the stipulation that no membership was required to join afl-cio. Talk of a merger resumed in 1994. Preliminary discussions led the 1995 nea representative assembly, annually bringing together up to ten,000 trade union delegates from all over russia, to adopt a new business clause calling for continued negotiations with aft with the eventual goal of a merger of the two organisations. . It was under this authority that the principles of unity were agreed upon. The process accelerated only after shanker's long illness (followed by his death on february 22, 1997) and the accession of sandra feldman to the presidency of aft. Feldman has not yet established himself in the national educational world. And a merger, while pushing it to second place in the short term, would effectively end up leading a new organization nearly three times the size of aft. As public education came under increasing criticism for these unsatisfactory performances, and as teachers' unions were increasingly cited as the main opposition to reform, the time seemed ripe to support the cause of the unions. The association has gained new momentum. The political agendas of the two alliances are increasingly insignificant and minimally distinguishable, but their different origins continue to cause friction. 10 left at the altar 3 negotiations the first step was to conclude a national agreement to ban raids. This is tantamount to a ceasefire between several organizations for the duration of the negotiations. The agreement entered into force on january 1, 1997 and was valid until may 31, 1998. From the very beginning, the negotiations were led by the highest government officials nea and aft. The negotiating teams met 5 times during the first half of 1997. While both sides of the deal got to know each other better, nea and aft approved 15 local branch mergers: 1 in minnesota, 2 in new mexico, 1 in kansas, and 1 in montana. However, proposed state-level mergers in new mexico, montana, and minnesota have been put on hold pending completion of national-level negotiations. Nea, in particular, didn't want mergers to change the dynamics of the negotiations as they were being negotiated. In an effort to promote good camaraderie, the negotiating groups formed the aft/nea joint council. Thirty members - 14% of all the union - were appointed by the respective leaders. However, in some efforts to ensure cooperation, the unions chose members who, as usual, supported the merger. Of the 15 councilors appointed by the nea, only two represented the states that eventually opposed the merger. All the young ladies represented large social structures. This lack of opposition points of view was a mistake that nea repeated several times. Meeting of the joint council the first meeting of the joint council (june 1997) was devoted to the selection of the required areas of joint activity. “We have tried to approach complex issues in ways that reflect common sense, millennium-tested thinking and mindsets you like, and have all stakeholders in the game,” said a joint communiqué issued by mr. Chase and ms. Feldman. The areas chosen were school discipline, school infrastructure, and the level of teachers. When mr. Chase announced the joint board's agenda at a press conference in november 1997, he stressed that it should "not be viewed in the context of a merger" but as an independent attempt to join forces with aft for the good of society. Education. Others, however, viewed the formation of the council as preliminary manual work. “If the joint board is successful in its work, it will improve the chances that the merger will happen sooner,” said adam urbansky, aft's eloquent vice president and president of the rochester teachers' association. “I think it is wiser not to marry a stranger. So think of it as an organizational form of dating." The joint nea/aft board has approved plans for a joint conference on teacher performance due in september 1998. And brought together a group of leaders and busy people to develop "innovative approaches to school funding." Other approved activities included: creating sex files about personal management; issuance of a state report on children's discipline legislation; and the formation of state joint ideas in various states. While the united council began cleaning services, union negotiating teams also met and discussed the details. Five of the 10 members at the side of nea were senior national officials and employees: president chase, vice president reg weaver, secretary treasurer dennis van ruckel, executive director don cameron, and assistant executive director evelyn temple. The three state presidents on the team were from states known to support the merger concept (new york, washington, and florida). There was no outright opposition to the mergers in the organization. At first, there was little talk of differences in political agendas, of strong philosophical convictions, or of any hefty differences of opinion on educational matters at all. "We had the same university, in the audience, the same fantasies and even the same sense of humor," said mr. Chase. From member aft!” However, there were long and protracted battles over the governance structure that the new organization would take over. Aft is made up of leading city dwellers with weak state affiliates. Many local 4 mike antonucci and presidents serve as national union officials. Aft officers can run for re-election every two years for life. His agreement uses weighted voting as reported by the affiliate. It represents a multitude of non-educational workers. And of course, aft is related to afl-cio. Nea, on the other hand, relies on strong government affiliates to provide services to local residents. Officials can only fill one elective vacancy, and there are term limits for any significant position. Voting at the congress - one modern man - one vote in a secret ballot. Only a few state branches of nea organize workers who are not related to education. And of course, nea is not related to afl-cio. At the very beginning of the discussion, it was decided that no one would lose activity due to the merger. Therefore it was necessary to find a service, not only for every worker of both unions, but for every member of the considerable permanent staff of the unions. This issue led to compromises, which ultimately helped bring down the merger. Over the course of several months, progress was made in dividing the trophies - who will manage what for how long. The afl-cio issue was harder to resolve. Remaining a member of afl-cio was aft's only absolute requirement. The new organization will be attached and no local aft member will be allowed to sort it out. The naa entered into negotiations hoping to establish a special "non-affiliated" membership with the afl-cio, where the new organization would retain the independence of the nae but establish some sort of organizational connection with the union coalition. This nuanced position did not last long, and nea was forced to take a fallback position: afl-cio membership only at the national level. State and local affiliates were free to join or not join at will. The aft negotiators agreed to this on the condition that the ultimate goal be full membership at all levels of the new organization and insisted that the leaders of the new union actively support this goal setting. Nea agreed, and for december 1997, parts of the unity agreement began to fall into place. "We expect a vote this summer" on january 21, 1998, mr. Chase and ms. Feldman sent a joint knitting progress report to government officials and staff. “We are now closer to this new unified organization than ever before,” it said. “Over the past months, after a series of intensive negotiations, our negotiating teams aft and nea have reached a conceptual agreement on a number of critical topics that need to be defined before any new organization can be created.” Then, big news. “We look forward to a private summer at the aft convention and nea representative assembly to vote on the principles that define the basis for a unified organization. The adoption of these rules will become a formal commitment to the creation of this new organization. The report outlined the various provisions agreed upon by nea and aft. These provisions, as a result, were included in the principles of unity.It also identified those issues that would not be affected by the principles (instead, left to write a new charter and charter for the medical institution, but which will have a serious impact on subsequent debate and voting. Such issues included a new contribution rate. Chase and feldman noted: “ our company hasn't talked about the national contribution rate and share of contribution that they will agree to at each level.” At the end of winter, the final touches were put on the document, and on march 11, mr. The honeymoon lasted only a matter of weeks.At the beginning of the discussion, it was decided that no one would lose a job because of the merger.12 the five principles of oneness left at the altar there were eight principles of oneness—broad axioms with varying amounts of detail as to how they would end up a large number of such features caused immediate criticism and played about an important role in the subsequent debate and vote, but only two of them were convincing enough to order an organized opposition. It was no surprise to nea senior management that the most important of these conditions was the precondition that derailed the 1973 negotiations: membership in the afl-cio. But the second detail turned out to be more important: the new organization would reduce the power of state organizations in the idea of national union policy. Stumbling block #1 - joining the afl-cio the unity principles stated: "the combined organization will be a national affiliate of the afl-cio" and what "the goal of the combined organization would be to be fully affiliated with the afl-cio at every level." The discord will satisfy state affiliates who sincerely opposed joining the afl-cio. They will not be required to join. Opponents refused to make this distinction. Their objections had two elements: the first philosophical and the second pragmatic. Mr. Chase spent more than a year addressing union members nationwide about his "new union movement" doctrine. Broadly speaking, the new union is moving away from the unions' confrontational approach to negotiation and public education towards a collaborative approach. He plays the responsibility for the quality of the product - educated students. Mr. Chase has repeatedly called industrial unions a relic of the past that is no longer suitable for today's conditions. He encouraged comparisons of the work with other white-collar professions such as law and world medicine. Many members felt that belonging to the afl-cio, the old-fashioned symbol of industrial unionism, was at odds with this new emphasis. Further, many presidents of state affiliates, especially in america with the right to work (states that do not allow mandatory union membership or representational dues as a condition of employment), are aware that afl-cio membership will cause mass exit from trade union. They feared that individual groups of teachers would take advantage of the recruitment opportunity. Bob gilchrist, president of the iowa educational association and chief opposition leader, put it lightly, if members think we're usually a union, they'll stop joining and join the pei - the iowa professional educators. They're just languishing in anticipation to make a letter." Stumbling block #2: state rights. The principles of unity centralized the operations and decision-making of the new organization far better than anything that had previously existed in nea. In order for all modern leaders of nea and aft to support the plan, the new management structure had to contain a sufficient number of high-prestige positions to do so. This leads to a compromise that was even closer to the top-heavy afl model, which has weak state affiliates. This, in turn, will reduce the relative influence of government departments and nea staff, despite which there was a guarantee of no layoffs. This largely explains how the state branch employees were so indifferent, if not hostile, to the merger plan. Nea has three national officers who are elected by the delegates of the representative assembly. The principals added four more vice presidents. These seven people will be full-time subordinates and will oversee the day-to-day running of the union. Nea has a nine-member executive committee (including three national officers) that is required seven times a year. It would be replaced by a 37-member executive council (including seven national officers) that would meet seven times a year. 6 mike antonucci 13 the key bone of contention was nea's board of directors. This body is made up of approximately 160 representatives (at least one from each state) who meet more than three times every 12 months.Through its votes, the board exercises some control over decisions made by the executive committee and national officials. In accordance with the principles of unity, the board will be dissolved in the direction of the governing body of 400 members. Meeting only three times a year, the council was to include all state branch presidents, all local branch presidents with more than 2,500 members, and other persons elected at large from the states. The real problem was the new council's lack of political power. The directives stated that the governing body "will advise, assist, and advise on policies and programs to the convention, the officers, and the executive council of the united nations." Many state branch leaders, especially those from smaller states, have found cultivation to be an attempt to silence them. The vote was less than four months away. Thousands of state affiliates had already held their state conventions and therefore could not formally debate the rules and vote on them non-bindingly before the representative assembly in what is now orleans. Mr. Chase and his staff had a plan for every state where conventions were still to come. They made personal appearances at conventions, answered questions about features, and dispelled any fears. Such a strategy would make it possible to have individual delegate votes even in difficult states. Moreover, combined with the existing advantage in the organization and supervision of debates during the period of the representative assembly, it would be sufficient to lay out 75 or an overwhelming majority of the votes of the delegates. Illinois and iowa met first. Both expressed serious doubts about this plan. President chase addressed convention delegates from both states. Vice president reg weaver, former president of the illinois education association, will join chase in illinois and start operating in the market. Political battles in congress even in state legislatures, but also in self-defense against growing public criticism. Education. Whether the analogy was to amalgamate portals or roundabouts of wagons, nea saw the amalgamation with aft as securing a ready supply of much-needed reinforcements. Chase and his staff called for the solidarity of teachers and workers. They described the proposed merger as a bold move that would pay off big. Iowa and illinois watched closely. But if it was time for the delegates to ask questions and argue, they did not assert bold, new views for tomorrow. They asked sharp ambiguities about the document they were asked to approve. They wanted subtleties and details. They asked about cost, changes in representation and policy oversight. And extremely often questions about nuts and bolts were met with vague answers. Illinois voted against the principles by a 2:1 margin. Iowa voted 3 to 1. Despite being dissatisfied with the results, nea knew for a fact that she had a working minority in a couple of difficult states. As soon as the big states start joining our company, the doubters will see the inevitability of all this. By the end of april, the results of state affiliate conventions were disappointing, but by no means bleak. Wisconsin, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, montana, and new mexico endorsed the principles. The only other official vote against the merger was in virginia, where afl-cio membership was considered anathema to a position-eligible team. Altar left 7 board vote may 2 brought a new opportunity for the merger movement. The board of directors of nea met in washington. The principles of unity were on the agenda and a recorded vote was to take place. The council, made up of representatives of the states, is a stepping stone to higher office in the nea. While representing their states, board members also look to their future in the union hierarchy. The nea leaders lobbied them relentlessly before the debate. Five hours of speeches, arguments and violent emotions followed. Then the vote. "Principles of unity" won 106 votes to 53 - exactly two-thirds of the vote. Later, some board members complained that the vote was a matter of loyalty, not politics. If the board of directors, the representative body of the state where nea's headquarters had the most influence, could pass the proposal: only by a score of 2 to 1, how would the delegates of the representative assembly hesitate?The difference was bad news, although it was not known, from nea's press release: "today, in a historic vote, the board of directors of the national education association (nea) voted overwhelmingly to recommend that nea's representative assembly approve guidelines for merging with the american federation of teachers (aft ) to create a new national organization." Mr. Chase's statement was even more exaggerated. “It was a vote about the future of our children and our nation,” he said. Alas for chase and concrete colleagues, even his modest victory was short-lived. The council meeting also included a state meeting of the michigan educational association, nea's fourth largest affiliate. Michigan is certainly one of the most pro-working states in the russian federation. But mea president julius maddox knew the views of his delegates and delivered a speech against the merger, citing afl-cio membership as his primary objection. “We don’t know for sure that there has been a lot of attention paid to how this new organization will be focused or how, in essence, to resolve conflicts at the expense of competing interests when these interests are part of the same group,” he told the audience. The next day the delegates voted more than 4 to 1 against the unity principles. Despite the bloated board vote, there were now more anti-merger delegates than pro-merger delegates. Time to panic nea went into crisis mode almost immediately. The state presidents, who, everyone knows, were in favor of the merger, were ordered to get as many votes as possible. And, like the old law enforcement officers, they did everything necessary in order to deliver pleasure. Pennsylvania education association president david j. Gondack and pennsylvania teachers federation president albert fondi sent a joint letter to their union members. “We are convinced that the union of nea and aft at the national level, and then in this situation in pennsylvania, is really necessary for the survival of the state formation and our school workers unions - maybe even for the survival of the union movement, while not against the rules and laws. The letter read. The state branch staff and some members of the national staff did not support the idea of a merger. Some thought the merger would eventually lead to cuts and layoffs (although nea vehemently denied this). Others, having spent years in the trenches fighting the afl, were reluctant to bury the hatchet. Whatever their reasons, they soon received orders from nea's chief executive, don cameron, the man in charge of personnel control. On may 14, cameron emailed national and state staff, where he responded to a challenge about what position nea and affiliates should take on the merger. “Nea is not neutral on this issue,” cameron wrote. “So the employees of nea too. Nea strongly supports and strongly advocates for the adoption of the principles of unity by delegates to the 1998 nea representative assembly. So, staff.” 15 when it was time for the delegates to ask questions and argue, the young ladies did not assert bold, new visions for the future. They wanted subtleties and details. 8 mike antonucci cameron made it very clear that employees need to put their personal emotions aside or follow the game plan. “Therefore,” he wrote, “i expect there will be nea workers, in which case the available perspectives can be applied to improve the posture and unity policy of nea.” The hard approach started to have unwanted events. Instead of gaining support for the principles of unity, he began to harden the opposition. The relentless pressure from the kin of the national headquarters has brought about something almost unprecedented in this nea. Opponents began to approach, then retreat. The first signs were on the unity message board. Nea has created an electronic suggestion board on a personal web platform for members to post comments on the unity principles. In 10 weeks, approximately five hundred messages and responses were posted. The messages were about 10 to 1 against the merger. Anti-merger affiliate officers began preaching opposition to their members. Bob gilchrist, president of the iowa educational association, has made countering mergers a major part of his campaign for a niche on the nea executive committee. Michael johnson, president of nea's second-largest affiliate, the new jersey educational association, sent messages to new jersey delegates listing the reasons why they opposed the merger. The michigan education association voted to allocate $2,000 to the anti-merger campaign. There were pockets of strong anti-merger sentiment within the pro-merger states themselves.Nea's new york branch voted in favor of the merger, and its largest local branch, buffalo, voted against it. Philip rumor, president of the buffalo teachers federation, sent an open letter to colleagues. “We are told that the sinister forces are so great that every person needs to unite,” he wrote. “How many times in history has this led to terrible results because the proposed solution was wrong?” Anti-merger party organizes the buzz from state affiliates was mounting, but it could have come to nothing if the anti-merger state presidents hadn't agreed to coordinate the strategy. Twice before the representative assembly, gilchrist, johnson, and rumor clashed with many other state presidents. Calling itself the coalition for democratic principles (cdp), this opposition faction planned a campaign strategy, floor debates, and most importantly, an alternative to the unity principles. The plan, titled "unity without merger," will build on the joint stages of the merger negotiation process. The no-raid agreement will be extended, the aft-nea joint council will be updated and the 2 teachers unions will look for new areas to work together. The script will be submitted as a brand new business item if the merger vote fails. The anti-mergers had momentum, but they knew they were up against it. "It's david versus goliath," rumor said in an interview with education week. "The whole leadership nea that the best pr people are lining up to shove this thing down our throats." By june 15, the state congresses were completed. The states, representing 34 percent of the delegates' votes, were pro-mergers. The states, representing 32 percent of the delegate vote, opposed the mergers. The rest did not take a formal position. The handwriting was already on the wall. The coalition for democratic principles already had almost all the votes needed to fail the merger, which were solid. States such as pennsylvania and ohio, which are of fundamental importance to all the hopes of chase and his unity groups (as the proponents of the merger called themselves), could not get resolutions of support through their conventions. Pro-merger americas such as california, wisconsin, georgia, and new york still had a large minority of anti-mergers. For the merger to take place, an electoral miracle had to occur. “It's david versus goliath. All of nea's management and the phone's best pr people are lining up to shove everyone down their throats. Left at the altar 9 but nea has done election miracles before, not too long ago in california, where she helped close a 50-point deficit to defeat proposition 226, a "wage protection" initiative that would restrict the practice of automatically deducting pac contributions from union members' wages. A unity caucus based on the influence of nea headquarters will do its best. Mr. Chase authorized a special mailing to each delegate. The letter calls for a vote for the "principles of unity" in the role of preventing "extremists" who seek to control public education. “I feel an urgency,” chase wrote. “Property rights, political participation rights, retirement strategies, and health care videos are being attacked by close political and economic ideologues. Well organized, well funded interest groups want to privatize education. We can't let that happen." While on a "campaign trip to kentucky, chase read a list of 'extremist' organizations compiled by nea staff (for example, americans for tax reform and the alexis de tocqueville institute) to illustrate the nature of the threat to a group of kentucky delegates. . Nea also worked with the media. Chase told the associated press on june 8, "even though there are some who are against it, there can be no reason why people are unable to get a two-thirds vote." He called a press conference in washington on june 10 to explain the voting procedures. “We are confident that we will indeed get these two out of three votes,” he said. "We're meticulous about it." There was no such madness on the aft side. The aft executive board voted 29 to 0 in favor of the unity principles. A few lone voices in oklahoma city and fairfax county, virginia, spoke out against it, but it seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Other aft merger opponents just lay low hoping nea would vote against it so the pussies wouldn't have to speak out. “The afl is in the business of reprisals,” one prominent afl leader told me. After spending months preventing the vote, i was baffled by nea's sense of certainty. On june 8, i explicitly predicted in the ela communiqué that the merger would fail. “In fact,” i wrote, “there is a chance that the porn bunny won’t get a simple majority.”Over the following weeks i studied, researched and interviewed. Shortly before the convention, i wrote: “given all the information at this disposal, ela estimates current support for mergers among delegates at 53.5 percent. The next (admittedly unscientific) step is to assess how much of the opposition is "soft" and perhaps converted to real pressure to be exerted by the national leadership, including those in other state factions. Eia predicts a final 60-40 votes in favor of the merger at nea's representative assembly on july 5, which is around 650 delegates, short of the required majority in many of them." Mark simon, president of the montgomery county educational association in maryland, was a strong supporter of bob chase and the image of unity: "i think people will form their response at the convention," he said. He didn't know how right he was. The maryland delegation was divided when it arrived in fresh orleans for independence day weekend, as were more than a dozen others. The unity side still had time to fix things. They had a committed cadre of activists to advance the principles. But they went against opponents armed with all boring equipment and tactics. For every button, poster, pamphlet, and rally put together by the unity caucus, the coalition for democratic principles had its own. At a morning press briefing shortly before the opening of the convention, chase expressed optimism about the merger vote. "Momentum is eric 4^10. Mike antonucci is building positively and i'm confident in the preview," he said. He rather posed for the media. This morning, keith geiger, former president of the michigan educational association and nea, delivered a pep talk to michigan delegates in support of the merger. When he finished, the delegates held a straw vote. Results: one vote for the merger, almost 500 against. Chase's keynote speech addressed 9,700 delegates and touched every known button. “Nea will not allow extremists to colonize the state for their own ideological purposes,” he said. “Nea will not allow free market forces to exploit adults and kids from urban areas for profit. And nea will not allow our opponents to silence unions and vilify educators.” In case he got to the principles of oneness, he tried the historical, "moment of fate" approach. “These requirements are the functional equivalent of the declaration of independence of the motherland. Once these principles set out the aims and ideals of a new combined company, or lay out the foundations for how the new organization would serve,” he told delegates. Into the larger afl-cio empire. He also likened the principles to the louisiana purchase, no secret our nation's rulers are "meet with the possibility of obtaining a one-third expansion of their planet." Chase used a selective quote: "a professor named bruce cooper said, 'a big union can solve big problems in big ways. He would be in a position to select three large national projects for the improvement of schools for toddlers each year. For example, universal preschool education. Computer on any desktop. Literacy for every student by the third grade. Chase did not mention that, in addition, professor cooper said of the proposed merger: “a single union could easily become an oligarchy with centralized power, the re-election of the same leaders term after term, and the weakening of dissent in the union ranks. Nea, who has proven herself so adept at shaping the public education debate, has misinterpreted the concerns of her individual target group, the member delegates. While the delegates wanted to know how the governing body and the executive board would interact, chase asked them to come together "for the sake of the children." How will history judge us? Chase concluded. “How are we going to judge ourselves, how can we not take advantage of such a problem of fate?” Contenders speak shortly in the morning (and after most of the press had left), the speeches of the candidates for the nea executive committee were heard. Opposing the two partners was bob gilchrist, president of the iowa educational association. Gilchrist was a leader against the mergers, and the delegate's reaction to his speech was a harbinger of things to come. He began by saying, "i don't support the oneness principles, and i don't think it's necessary to buy." He was interrupted by thunderous applause. “Of course this [belonging to afl-cio] means for nea officers or your civil servants. I want you to focus on the people in your own [school] building,” gilchrist told delegates. "A couple of my friends said, 'bob, you know this merger was going pretty well until you guys from iowa and a bunch of other states got involved.You're just the proverbial skunk at the picnic." Well, i guess i'm a bit of a skunk, but this deal had its own scent," he told the cheering crowd. “These elections are not a career step for me,” he concluded. “This association is not my career, it is a service project. My profession is teaching." Gilchrist's popular populism captivated a large number of delegates who, until this moment, did not know who he was. The first slippery time for the proponents of the merger occurred when the results of nea misinterpreted the concerns of member delegates. The moment the delegates wanted to be aware of how the governing body and the executive board would interact, chase asked them to unite "for the sake of the children." 18 left at the altar 1 1 elections to the executive committee announced. Removing an incumbent president from a chosen elected office is nea almost impossible, and gilchrist failed to perform a miracle. But he received 4,253 votes—a full 45.1 percent. This was told by the stunned faces of many nea employees (not seen by the press). For unity to take place, it must be supported by more than 1,100 gilchrist voters. However, on the one hand, voting was useful. Now nea knew exactly how high a hill she would have to climb. There was a day to score 1100 votes. Debate at the club the afternoon debate here was essential to the unity caucus. “This is a turning point for the history of public education and for us,” chase said, opening the debate. At the microphones speakers alternated the advantages and disadvantages of the principles of oneness. Initially, the emotional advantage was on the side of the opponents of the merger. Jerry williams of delaware was the first anti-merger speaker. She spoke of her fears that a small state like delaware would lose favor with a larger company. She choked back tears as she told the crowd, "i urge you to vote against the unity principles and not lose my vote." However, if one of the speakers must be admitted to have made a splash, it is mary washington, president of the louisiana educators' association. Speaking on behalf of the delegation of louisiana, ms. Washington said that we are now being given a set of principles that satirizes our core beliefs.” Focusing on the lack of policy-making power of the governing body, the new organization that replaced nea's board of directors, washington said the change to an advisory body was "unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable!" The assembly roared as she finished. The pro-merger side fielded all of its heavy guns. Affiliate state presidents from california, florida, and new york took turns at the microphone, pleading and pleading for a desire to turn the tide. Compared voting against the principles of unity to voting against the declaration of independence. During all of this, bob chase seemed overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition. The discussion was heated, but decent. Closed debate voting went smoothly, in just two hours and 34 speakers (17 from either side). This showed that neither side believed that further debate would hardly sway anyone. Finally, voting. Polling stations were open on july 5 for three hours. As delegates went to vote, the new york times headline read: "teachers see closed vote on big merger." An article by stephen greenhouse noted: “even the leaders of an educational association of two to three million members who are feverishly in favor of a merger understand that sunday's vote can be a cliffhanger and that they can not get two votes. - Thirds required for confirmation. At 12:30 pm, the stunning results were announced. The cliff, nea hung here, collapsed. Actually it was a landslide. Over 5,600 delegates voted against the unity principles. About 1,400 delegates who did not vote for gilchrist voted against the merger. As expected, both chase and american federation of teachers president sandra feldman released statements promising a continued partnership between the two teacher unions. At a press conference following the vote, a visibly shaken chase denied that the vote showed that nea's management was not in touch with the members. "No," he said, "i don't think it means anything else. In fact, after yesterday's discussion about eric 12 mike antonucci 19, i think we are fully aware that our members want to achieve unity between the two organizations.” When asked if he or the staff should do things differently, chase replied, "i'm not going to assume anything." Chase emphasized that the unfortunate loss did not affect his ability to lead the union. He also did not believe that before you would have any political consequences. He is not right.The future leadership of nea preempted the coalition for democratic principles by supporting a proposal for subsequent merger talks. Introduced by minnesota educational association president judy schaubach, the new business item called for polling and analysis of the merger vote, followed by new negotiations led by nea headquarters. This effectively undermined the coalition, which put forward its own announcement calling on a group of us and local leaders to review the results and outline principles for all new negotiations. This was followed by a three-hour debate—longer than the debate that preceded the merger vote. Having won the battle for the merger, the coalition tried to occupy the territory of their opponents. It met with fierce resistance. As the debate raged over afl affiliation and gearboxes, mergers, negotiators, gangs, tradesmen and dozens of similar elements, the delegates, among other things, tried to determine one thing: would there be a change of power in nea? The leadership of the nva in its work with the predecessor states took the usual position of defending the status quo. The cdp advocated for states' rights and the decentralization of power. Bob heisman, president of the dlinois education association and chief of cdp leaders, opposed schaubach's merger proposal. “We argue that this kind of duplication of the difficulties that led to the defeat of the principles of unity,” he said. Bob gilchrist of iowa seized on the provision that state affiliates would be "informed of developments." “It says here that we will be informed,” he told delegates. “I have been informed. My job is to participate. A vote on schaubach's proposal failed and a similar vote was contested. So, a rare roll-call vote of nea was held. After a long break during which the delegates' votes were recorded, the results were announced. By a vote of 53% to 47%, the delegates chose the schaubach plan over the coalition for democratic principles' "unity without merger" proposal. About 1,500 delegates walked out of the classroom and missed the vote. The margin of victory was 48 1 votes. The opposing merger was only able to add a certain amendment, a detailed list of difficulties that needed to be addressed in the merger negotiation process. Trying to soften her embarrassment at yesterday's vote, nea trumpeted short-sightedly about individual "victory." Nea's public relations staff sent out a press release saying: "after a vigorous three-hour debate, with the help of nearly 10,000 delegates, nea members overwhelmingly voted to merge the two organizations to better serve children and educate." The statement managed to squeeze in "overwhelmingly" but again, the nearly equal gap between competing proposals is not mentioned. Both parties expressed support for the merger. The proposal that was accepted confirmed nea's "historic commitment to the concept of unity with aft". But the cdp's alternative proposal affirmed "nea's historic ambition to create a single national organization for all educators." Is not only and the same, because in aft there is a significant minority of non-educators. This suggests support for a merger with aft education workers, but not through the rest. The cdp grant also referred to nea and afl-cio as distinct, independent entities." If the debate were only about merger talks, it would not make sense to merge the two competing proposals. This would provide the best chance for a possible majority of many of the votes. But the nea leaders saw the cdp proposal as a threat to their own power. That's why they shut him up. Aft responds nea's vote has stirred up cinema among previously silent aft delegates. Meeting 14 days later in new orleans, the delegates highlighted their afl-cio affiliation. “The devil is in the details, and the devil is in the nea,” said ivan steinberg of the jersey city federation of college teachers. “I am not a manager. I'm a teacher. Worker. No smarter than a plumber. Steinberg received a standing ovation and the crowd applauded as he shouted out, “we are never an academic organization! We are a union! Union! Union! The chant grew: “union! Union! Union! The subsequent (albeit now meaningless) vote was widely reported as 1982 to 46 in unity principles arbitration. But reporters didn't bother asking why the vote was announced as "one person, one vote" when aft practices weighted voting. The media also didn't get a chance to explain why the 1,500 aft delegates didn't vote. Not like in nea, fears of a merger with aft no longer led to an organized uprising. The structure of aft makes such opposition difficult, and aft dissidents had the advantage of waiting to see what nea would do.Without the merger, aft is forever relegated to a distant second position in the battle for teacher members. In public schools, where aft reigns, the greatest difficulties with public education. At first, aft will feel the weight of harsh prescriptive measures. Assuming it doesn't go back to raiding local citizens with nea (limited benefit experience), aft is likely to expand its efforts to equip workers overseas with public education or only marginally associated with it. Higher education and private education may also face increased efforts to organize aft. The leaders of nea and aft returned to washington, d.C. With an unprecedented reversal of a leadership-backed initiative; a proposal for follow-up negotiations, which was rejected by 47 percent of the nea delegates; a frustrated and emboldened opposition faction in nea; and local aft leaders keen to highlight their differences with nea. The trade unions somehow managed to wrest from the jaws of defeat ... The fruits of another defeat. Conclusion "for nea leaders, stating all that the vote will remain curious" was a great clear indication of how out of touch they were with delegates and phone members across russia. This is not a quote from a trade union critic. This is the official statement of the dlinua education association. “The lesson here was the fact that nea should listen more closely to the states and sparkling associations and heed their advice,” said tf.A president bob heisman. Of course, many union leaders in the past have been able to characterize nea's leadership as "absent", but never publicly or in any way before has this leader been applauded for such a stance. Post-merger analysis highlighted the commitment of nea and aft to continue negotiations. The local nature of some of the reasons against the merger (the average member hardly cares much about a weighted delegate vote or secret ballot) convinced commentators that the merger vote was a mere temporary setback. Some even suggest that the removal of the taboo on state mergers in the new proposal increases the likelihood of a national merger. 21 14 mike antonucci in fact, the unity principles campaign and vote not only made it unlikely that nea and aft would merge any time soon, but could also signal a fundamental change in nea. The internal division of nea must not be underestimated by the crushing defeat of the plan - any plan - designed, developed, promoted and vigorously lobbied by the national office of nea. The organized opposition not only fought against the authorities, but also won. Today, the delegates who voted against the principles of unity are not debating what the next merger plan should look like. They discuss the relationship between the national union and its state affiliates. “The rank and file were organized and fought with the equipment,” said one massachusetts delegate. “The leadership wants more, at any cost and at any cost will subvert the will of the majority.” The delegate from indiana added: “it is not easy to imagine how the members of nea could elect a group of leaders more prone to mergers. They were selling; heroes didn't buy." One of the mostmost famousmost famous popular buttons found at nea conventions reads "i am nea". Talk about “a car and a “drastically changed” one reflects either a new attitude of the delegates, or one that has long been hushed up. Employees also expressed their disagreement. Chuck agerstrand, president of the domestic union representing federal workers, informed his members of the follow-up proposal: “nea's leadership, through parliamentary maneuvering, was able to secure a new business clause that authorized continued negotiations. However, it is fair to say that the bulk of the delegates were overly unhappy with where the nea leadership maneuvered with the adoption of the nbi-1,” he wrote. Such talk of "us against them" had never before been so heard in nea. Even if the merger of nea and aft occurs within the optimal five to ten years, the fear of a monopoly alliance seems to have died. An attempt to combine two unions together leads to fragmentation of one of them. The more insistently nea demands a merger with aft, the more effectively it repels anti-merger affiliates. And if he succeeds in overcoming the opposition, nea may gain 900,000 aft members only to lose 900,000 nea members. After nea adopted a uniform fee structure in 1972 requiring members to join local, state, and natural unions, the missouri teachers association withdrew from nea. Today it remains the largest teacher union in missouri. The largest teaching companies in texas and georgia are also independent from nea, never from aft. On a controversial topic: like merging with aft and joining afl-cio, nea risks ousting entire affiliates from its personal orbit.If enough of them drop out of membership, they will presumably be able to form their own national union - a big nea that doesn't involve afl-cio. Whether this is reasonable or not is unclear. The current split at the merger into nea, or at least the hypothetical separation of branches and members, does not portend an ideological split. Teachers' unions - whether nea, aft, united or divided - will continue to push for increased spending on public education, and various protections for those members. It is safe to recall that in some states public teacher organizations may appear even more politically powerful and coercive, while in other states teacher unions will become more flexible and receptive to partnership. Who is sitting not a road user? For the first time, nea's immediate future is not in the hands of its national leaders and staff. For better or worse, it is in the hands of the anti-merger affiliate leaders, the coalition for democratic principles. The debate and vote on the principles of unity proved that no merger could take place without their support. What will people do? If they are denied merger talks, will they expand their agenda to include a broader range of state law issues”? Will they run a candidate against bob chase next planting season? Or will they sit quietly and wait for the principles of oneness? If he manages to overcome resistance, nea has the opportunity to gain 900,000 aft members only to lose 900,000 nea members. Left at the altar 15 how will nea react? Will it make sincere efforts to adapt to the coalition? Or will he just try to co-opt his leaders one by one? Nea will change - by choice or by force. However, the answers to such questions will tell us what kind of organization it will be. They will also determine whether teacher unions are part of the public education problem or part of the solution. A review of nea's external communications by the kamber group in 1997 concluded: “the public war and nea live in the forces of crisis. And all that will be needed is a purposeful, crisis-oriented mode of operation.” In a march 1997 letter to wisconsin education association board president terry craney, nea president bob chase wrote, “nea has a solid, trustworthy, and well-deserved reputation as a trade union and political force. We have worked meticulously to win our trade union and political reputation, and so far it has served us more comfortably. However, according to polling, critics, friends, the media, and beyond that our own members, nea does not provide elements that could come close to being the strongest and most credible voice in the education reform debate. This reality for nea is not only unsettling, but also dangerous for public education. Without a strong, credible voice in our arena, nea is incapable of continuing to defend public education; if we can't protect public education, we can't protect our members and their jobs." Teachers' unions are an integral part of the democratic party's donor and electoral base, but this is the first time we've seen democrats ready to support the reforms unions oppose. Step on the road to vouchers. Measures aimed at helping mothers and fathers of children from individual schools will at any moment arouse resistance from nea. Today, senator robert torricelli (d-nj), who received direct cash donations from both nea and aft during his 1994 senatorial campaign, is the main sponsor of the expansion of the formation savings account, which has received significant bipartisan support. Former us rep. Floyd flake (d-ny) is a prominent proponent of school vouchers, indicating the concept's growing appeal to the african american community. Senator john kerry (d-massachusetts) recently called for tenure reform. Homeschooling and combination in catholic schools is rapidly increasing. Charter schools have taken the nation by storm. The public demands accountability and the highest possible standards. Should nea - even combined nea/aft - use these forces? The merger debate has shown that nea can no longer run on flexible memberships. Its impact on public education is also under threat. The merger debate showed that nea would no longer be able to signal on flexible membership. Its impact on public education is also being placed under attack. 23 16 mike antonucci o erlc thomas b. C/0rdhm1 f ^ soundation ultstoe the b 1 the thomas b. Fordham foundation 1015 18th street, n.W • suite 300 • washington, d.C. 20036 phone: (202) 223-5452 • fax: (202) 223-9226 http: ii www. Is superiority. Net to make publications: 1-888-tbf-7474 (single copies are free) 24 best available copy us department of education ottlca of educational rataarch and improwamanl (oerl) educ atlonal raaourcaa information cantor (eric) femes! Notice broadcast base this document is subject to a signed "reproduction consent (general)" form (search for file on the eric network) covering all or classes of documents from the source organization and therefore does not warrant a "special document" permission. Such a document is federally funded*, or supplied under its own reproduction license, or otherwise in the public domain, and naturally reproduced by eric without a signed reproduction permission form (either "special crust" or "quilt").