The caucus, which had already decided not to run for any office it could possibly win, deemed it too risky to actually have any members. After all, people might vote for you by mistake. And you never know when one some troublemaker may decide having an actual voice in union matters might be something worth pursuing. Next thing you know, they're speaking to people and expressing ideas. Who knows what sort of ideas these might be?
A MORE leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the following: "The thing about the Executive Board is that, if we organize, it's possible we will win. I myself am too busy to actually spend two Monday nights a month at 52 Broadway. After all, there are my rumba lessons, there's hot yoga, and then there are the political groups I actually care about. Anyway, I don't have time to go and if I can't do it, I don't trust anyone else to do it either."
Another leader, also speaking under conditions of anonymity, told NYC Educator, "Here's the thing. It was a lot of work to get rid of the troublemakers. We had to violate all of our rules and bylaws to do that, and then we found there still weren't enough troublemakers out. So we bounced Norm Scott, because he kept talking about the stuff we did. That made us look pretty bad, because we actually did all that stuff, and it's unacceptable to have people know about it. By getting rid of him, we were able to stop him knowing what we were doing. Now we can do whatever we want and no one will know."
It's ironic, because we at NYC Educator spent years slamming Unity for a loyalty oath, only to be invited to run on their slate with no preconditions whatsoever, with a specific request that we keep challenging them. So we asked why, if MORE was an open caucus, it kept tossing people out. How can this caucus possibly represent a union if it only accepts members who represent a very narrow political ideology?
"We've thought about that, actually," answered our source. "Though we've tossed the current troublemakers, we really have no way of knowing whether new people will cause more trouble. In fact, even I might get an idea and cause trouble. So I also have to go. That's why we've decided to toss out absolutely everyone. This is really the only way we can assure absolute ideological purity and no variation whatsoever from our purposes. For example, if we continued to have members, some of them would eventually want to not only run in union elections, but also win them. We can't have that."
"Furthermore, it's not really social justicey if we just toss out some people and don't toss out others. So in fairness to all, we're going to throw absolutely everyone out. And we want everyone to know that we aren't doing this on basis of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or any standard whatsoever. If you are human, you are out."
We brought forth the possibility of animals and/ or artificial life forms, but our source had no comment.
MORE is planning to place an ad in NY Teacher, in which it will focus on the necessity of striking. Strike is the only way, our source said, for MORE to get what it wants. Winning a UFT election is absolutely off the table, said our source, since that would mean the members who won could be corrupted. After all, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and no power whatsoever corrupts not at all.
When NYC Educator asked what would happen if they did win, our source replied, "Well, that would be highly inconvenient. I, for example, haven't got time to go to any more meetings than I already attend. What we would probably do with the union is the same thing we are doing with the caucus. We would throw everyone out. Then, there would be no more union meetings and I could get back to doing stuff that was more important."
What exactly is it that's more important than working to make a better union, to improve working conditions for us and learning conditions for our students?
"No comment," said our source.
Posts
