massteacher.org

“When We Fight, We Win” – A Lesson from West Virginia

It’s no secret that our union has not been functioning effectively. It’s no secret that we will be hit hard by the Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which will rule that people no longer need to pay an agency fee but may nonetheless get most of the benefits of the union. It would be easy to predict disaster for our members and our union; West Virginia shows it may not work out that way.

A word on our own situation before considering the lessons of West Virginia. The MCCC will be hit harder by the Janus decision than any other part of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA). Across the state there are more than 80,000 teachers and educators working in classrooms from kindergarten through high school – less than 500 of those people are paying agency fee, all the rest are members of the MTA and some local association. In the MCCC we represent less than ten percent as many people, but we have more than three times as many agency fee payers.

Among our full time employees, agency fee payers are rare – less than five percent of the total. We don’t show quite the level of solidarity found in K-12, but the great majority of people choose to join the union and become members. In our DCE unit it’s a very different story. There are lots and lots of agency fee payers. Many people do not choose to join the union.

There are many reasons that could be so: lower incomes, not sure they will be around for the long term, never been asked to join, and/or not so sure the union is committed to fighting for adjunct members, a reservation born out of our past history, including the history of the negotiations for our still-open DCE contract, now 690 Days ( 23 months) past its initial expiration date on May 31, 2016. That combination – lots of agency fee payers, a hostile Supreme Court decision, and employees uncertain about the union’s effectiveness and commitment – could end up as a recipe for disaster.

Or then again, maybe not. West Virginia is a right-to-freeload state; often misleadingly called “right to work.” It’s what will apply to public sector employees across the nation if the Supreme Court rules as expected in the Janus decision, coming in May or June. It means that by law, an employee can pay nothing to the union, but the person still gets the wages and benefits negotiated in the contract and the union has to represent the person if they have a grievance. Bizarre, right? It’s illegal to strike in West Virginia. They have a Republican governor (elected as a Democrat, then changed his party) and Republicans control both houses of the legislature. Teacher pay is 48th in the nation, and they haven’t had a raise in ten years. All of which, it’s pretty obvious, makes it “impossible” to go on strike

Except that West Virginia teachers, and support personnel, did go on strike. Statewide. Every single one of the 55 counties across the state. The people who organized and led that strike were mostly building reps and respected workers; very few of them were local leaders or statewide board members. They organized through Facebook. They took a series of escalating actions, beginning by wearing red on Fridays and, in a handful of counties, moving to one-day “Fed Up Friday” work actions. They began to talk about a statewide strike. Their union leadership urged them to have a rolling strike, five counties at a time. The members said “No,” that was too mild; they were all going out together, teachers and support workers. And they did.

A few days into the strike, the governor, the legislature, and union leaders cut a deal: a 5% pay increase for teachers, no raises for anyone else, no remedy for the health insurance issues (which outraged educators). The rank-and-file members were gathered on the steps of the state capitol as these negotiations went on. They received 15 minutes advance warning before the leaders and legislators came out to announce the deal, which enabled them to have a hurried discussion and prepare their response. When the leaders came out and proclaimed a deal, rank-and-file members burst into chants of “TURN IT DOWN.” Amazingly, across the state educators held meetings in any space they could find and, county by county, voted to turn down the deal and keep the strike going, insisting on a raise for all state employees, including the most vulnerable, not just for the full-time teachers. The strike went on for days, the health insurance issue was at least quasi-addressed, and all workers got the raise. No one talked of any punishments for strikers. Everyone – teachers, support workers, legislators, the governor, the media – understood this as near total victory for the strikers.

The lessons for us? Even when things look bleak – and conditions there were a lot more hostile than they are here – action is possible. Even when the statewide leadership is willing to cut an unfavorable deal, worker action can override that and say “hell no.” Even when an offer is made to buy out the most privileged workers, people can stand in solidarity and say “an injury to one is an injury to all,” with full-time teachers continuing the strike to support other state workers. Even when it’s illegal, you can mount a successful statewide strike. Even if the official union machinery won’t lead the action, rank-and-file leaders will do so.

If we want our agency fee paying adjuncts to join the union, the best way to get them to do so is to show them union strength and solidarity. If we – all of us – are fighting for equal pay for equal work, if we lead the battle for health insurance for adjunct faculty, if we show the strength to make real gains – if we do all that, we will be in position to persuade agency fee payers to become union members.

Union Solidarity – “An Injury to One Is An Injury to All”

Since the announcement of my election as MCCC President in March 2016 and before I even took office on June 1, 2016, I have been, and I remain, a polarizing figure in the MCCC, my every move distrusted, with the worst of motives ascribed to me. So let me be clear: I am not a candidate for re-election as president of the MCCC. It is my hope that fresh voices will be elected to give the MCCC a chance to start a new, and I offer a few thoughts on that.

At least three issues need to be addressed: (1) the level of venom directed at people trying to do what they think is best for the members, (2) the attempts to block new initiatives and involvement by new people, and (3) the information blockages that make it hard for people to know what is going on. Let me briefly address each of those points, and suggest in the broadest terms what I think is needed to move forward what the members deserve.

First, we need to address the tone inside the MCCC. When I proposed to Board members that we drive together to an MCCC meeting, one person, whom I had thought of as my friend, wrote to me (before I’d been on the job a month) that “I don’t want you in my car or anywhere close to me, ever.” A chapter president said he would call security if I attended a chapter meeting, explaining that “It is not a veiled threat, and it is meant to intimidate you.” Moving forward, MCCC leaders need to agree to provide space for alternative views and to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Second, our aim should be to welcome those who want to engage with union activity. We need to find ways to incorporate people who do not already have years of experience. They bring new perspectives, networks, and energy. When a new generation wants to engage, and gets rebuffed or ill-treated, that sends the message that the existing MCCC leadership is a closed club. Too often, that is true: seven of our Directors are receiving the equivalent of a 3-credit Step 2 DCE course (currently valued at $3,423; e.g. $1,141 per credit x 3 credits) for one reason or another, and many have served for years and years. We should implement a term limit on MCCC board members – just as our parent organizations, the MTA and the NEA, have done.

Third, it is a crazy situation to elect a President and then tell her that she can’t communicate directly with the members (except once a month through this column). In the MCCC, and only in the MCCC, the President’s messages are to be sent to chapter presidents, who then decide whether or not to pass on the news to chapter members.

Leading the MCCC would be a huge challenge in the best of circumstances. Public education is under attack every-where, as are public sector unions. Community colleges are the poor step-children of the system, with lower pay, higher teaching loads, and fewer resources than the state universities or UMass. Full-time faculty are being replaced by adjuncts, who are paid and treated disgracefully. In our system, “Equal Pay for Equal Work” becomes a radical demand, when it should be the most basic starting point that all can accept. Our efforts to build a strong DCE bargaining team and campaign have repeatedly been thwarted.

The MCCC has more agency fee payers than all K-12 locals combined. In June, when the Supreme Court is expected to issue its Janus decision abolishing agency fee, the MCCC will lose more members than any segment of the MTA. Keeping our DCE members would be a huge challenge if MCCC leadership had the best will in the world, with a union that was working together, with a shared commitment to making adjunct issues a priority. I was elected in significant part to try to address adjunct issues; I have to confess that (so far) I have failed – and the MCCC has failed with me. It would be hard for anyone in the MCCC to argue, with a straight face, that we have made equal pay for adjuncts a priority for all our members.

My term ends on May 31; new officers will be seated in June. Whatever the out-come of statewide and local chapter elections, it is clear to me that if we continue in the old way, with rancor and pettiness, with efforts to keep all union positions within the hands of those who have been involved for years, with information flows blocked, with adjunct issues neglected – then we will have a rocky future. It’s time for the MCCC to turn over a new leaf, to bring in new leadership at every level, to open up the process, to set a new tone, and to address issues that for too long have been swept under the rug. If you are still reading, I urge you to get involved, to put yourself forward as a candidate, to elect new chapter leaders, new board members, and to think about new ways for the MCCC to operate. The MCCC can be a tremendous force for good; with your participation, it can realize its potential.