Parents: Would you support a teacher strike if it means there is no DL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The strategy and power struggle between the union and dcps leadership is fascinating if depressing. Reopening schools should not be a game.

Firing that principal from SWW may have tipped the scales but what a price to pay for that school community. And, it sure didn’t work very quickly.

Exactly. It was a very big price to pay and possibly short sighted as DCPS already has a difficult time attracting strong principal candidates from outside the system. Many problematic principals are kept on because it is so hard to replace them. In the long run, that is not good for DCPS

Lots of people in the Walls community did not see him as a strong leader. He was not universally respected as a leader. I know that’s the message that was put out there by some vocal community members but there have been some questionable actions and questionable things said to staff and students by that principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

You’re really something discussing this here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

Your outside analysis is pretty good. I've been watching this from the inside shocked at how it played out - one major flaw in this case (no secret here, dots are easily connected) is how much she relied on external forces, city council for one, to act on behalf of the union.All talk amounting to no action. Lots of wasted time with the council. Also creating the narrative of "safe" and making assumptions on behalf of parents/guardians, etc really early on and never considering pivoting and/or changing the messaging based on listening to the community rather than telling them what to think.

Notifying the union membership at large what the implications of a strike are, at this point, is a dereliction of duty when it could have been messaged months ago. This was never going to end well.

Yes, whoever created the "only when safe" talking point should be flogged. It means everything and nothing at once. Some on here seem to define "only when safe" to mean "no risk" which is absurd. I can no longer hear people use this phrase without rolling my eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

You’re really something discussing this here.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

Your outside analysis is pretty good. I've been watching this from the inside shocked at how it played out - one major flaw in this case (no secret here, dots are easily connected) is how much she relied on external forces, city council for one, to act on behalf of the union.All talk amounting to no action. Lots of wasted time with the council. Also creating the narrative of "safe" and making assumptions on behalf of parents/guardians, etc really early on and never considering pivoting and/or changing the messaging based on listening to the community rather than telling them what to think.

Notifying the union membership at large what the implications of a strike are, at this point, is a dereliction of duty when it could have been messaged months ago. This was never going to end well.

Yes, whoever created the "only when safe" talking point should be flogged. It means everything and nothing at once. Some on here seem to define "only when safe" to mean "no risk" which is absurd. I can no longer hear people use this phrase without rolling my eyes.

Like they could have fired almost 5,000 people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

Your outside analysis is pretty good. I've been watching this from the inside shocked at how it played out - one major flaw in this case (no secret here, dots are easily connected) is how much she relied on external forces, city council for one, to act on behalf of the union.All talk amounting to no action. Lots of wasted time with the council. Also creating the narrative of "safe" and making assumptions on behalf of parents/guardians, etc really early on and never considering pivoting and/or changing the messaging based on listening to the community rather than telling them what to think.

Notifying the union membership at large what the implications of a strike are, at this point, is a dereliction of duty when it could have been messaged months ago. This was never going to end well.

Yes, whoever created the "only when safe" talking point should be flogged. It means everything and nothing at once. Some on here seem to define "only when safe" to mean "no risk" which is absurd. I can no longer hear people use this phrase without rolling my eyes.

Like they could have fired almost 5,000 people

Do those 5,000 people want to lose their salaries, health insurance and years built toward (but not yet achieved) retirement? Do they really want to play chicken with their careers, particularly those who are eyeing administration as their next step? There would have been many teachers who would not have participated in the strike because, guess what, they don't agree with it. The union did a piss poor job. My child's teacher has done an amazing job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

Your outside analysis is pretty good. I've been watching this from the inside shocked at how it played out - one major flaw in this case (no secret here, dots are easily connected) is how much she relied on external forces, city council for one, to act on behalf of the union.All talk amounting to no action. Lots of wasted time with the council. Also creating the narrative of "safe" and making assumptions on behalf of parents/guardians, etc really early on and never considering pivoting and/or changing the messaging based on listening to the community rather than telling them what to think.

Notifying the union membership at large what the implications of a strike are, at this point, is a dereliction of duty when it could have been messaged months ago. This was never going to end well.

Yes, whoever created the "only when safe" talking point should be flogged. It means everything and nothing at once. Some on here seem to define "only when safe" to mean "no risk" which is absurd. I can no longer hear people use this phrase without rolling my eyes.

Yea because violence is the answer to everything. Typical.

[Anonymous]

Not if they remain a priority group for the vaccine.
If they refuse to go back into the classroom what is the point of having them high up in the vaccine queue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

You’re really something discussing this here.

Agree.

Fascinating. Do union people not realize that your actions are interpretable by others with experience? You are blaming others for commenting on their interpretation of your actions, like what you are doing is some secret? Man oh jeez you guys are bad at negotiating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

Your outside analysis is pretty good. I've been watching this from the inside shocked at how it played out - one major flaw in this case (no secret here, dots are easily connected) is how much she relied on external forces, city council for one, to act on behalf of the union.All talk amounting to no action. Lots of wasted time with the council. Also creating the narrative of "safe" and making assumptions on behalf of parents/guardians, etc really early on and never considering pivoting and/or changing the messaging based on listening to the community rather than telling them what to think.

Notifying the union membership at large what the implications of a strike are, at this point, is a dereliction of duty when it could have been messaged months ago. This was never going to end well.

Yes, whoever created the "only when safe" talking point should be flogged. It means everything and nothing at once. Some on here seem to define "only when safe" to mean "no risk" which is absurd. I can no longer hear people use this phrase without rolling my eyes.

Like they could have fired almost 5,000 people

Do those 5,000 people want to lose their salaries, health insurance and years built toward (but not yet achieved) retirement? Do they really want to play chicken with their careers, particularly those who are eyeing administration as their next step? There would have been many teachers who would not have participated in the strike because, guess what, they don't agree with it. The union did a piss poor job. My child's teacher has done an amazing job.

Teachers have no retirement plan in DC. Just another slap in the face.

Guess what out of those 5k at least half would have participated and that’s enough. No one wants to risk their life. I just started IPL and already there’s 2 positive cases!! It doesn’t make me feel safe to now have to quarantine and wait for my test. It doesn’t make my wonderful kids and families feel safe either. I had quite a few parents message me because their child was riddled with anxiety asking their parents if they could FaceTime me to make sure I’m ok.

So yea teachers are amazing and no one treats us like it. It’s not just about money or benefits it’s about being respected and seen as humans, not just an expendable teaching machine. I came back because I don’t view your children as just a student, I try to give them as much love, care, and nurturing as possible.

But now I’m a bad person because DCPS hasn’t shown me it’s safe. They’ve shown me they don’t care about anything except green and that’s a stark reality check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

You’re really something discussing this here.


Agree.

Now without including my own comment in the quote!

Fascinating. Do union people not realize that your actions are interpretable by others with experience? You are blaming others for commenting on their interpretation of your actions, like what you are doing is some secret? Man oh jeez you guys are bad at negotiating.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating. Do union people not realize that your actions are interpretable by others with experience? You are blaming others for commenting on their interpretation of your actions, like what you are doing is some secret? Man oh jeez you guys are bad at negotiating.

A former union president of the WTU- I assume I think it’s inappropriate.
You are not involved in the union and don’t need to know any inner workings, you just need to know teachers do not feel safe, valuable, or appreciated.

Especially when some IPL is just CARES 2.0 or there’s only 2 freaking students showing up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

You’re really something discussing this here.

Agree.

What does this mean? Is it good or bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating. Do union people not realize that your actions are interpretable by others with experience? You are blaming others for commenting on their interpretation of your actions, like what you are doing is some secret? Man oh jeez you guys are bad at negotiating.

A former union president of the WTU- I assume I think it’s inappropriate.
You are not involved in the union and don’t need to know any inner workings, you just need to know teachers do not feel safe, valuable, or appreciated.

Especially when some IPL is just CARES 2.0 or there’s only 2 freaking students showing up!

You assume that you think? Weird phrasing but ok.

Again, people get to look at the union’s actions and comment. It’s odd that the union seems to think people who have a stake in their decisions are creating a problem by discussing those actions. Take responsibility for your actions and communication. Hate to tell you this if this is not known to you. but the public is now involved in the union’s workings. Bc the union impacts so much more than just the union members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, former union leader here:

So, this is obviously bad. First, there's a clear solidarity problem within the union, where you do have union members saying they don't support what their union is doing, posting internal emails here, etc. That doesn't bode well for collective action, especially a strike which will leave each member legally vulnerable. The WTU membership would have to be VERY serious and VERY committed in order to pull off a strike, but it seems like they're not. This suggests to me that if we're aware of it, management is aware of it. This is why management is pre-emptively invoking the courts--to remind members of their potential legal peril.

Now, we have all seen clear communication from the WTU about a vague threat of a strike. This was a bad move for a couple of reasons. They've tipped their hand and allowed management to prepare ahead of time AND by saying they're calling for a vote, they're indicating that they don't know if the whole membership is on board.

You do not ever want management to realize that you don't have enough people on board to strike meaningfully. This is basically your main union power, and once its gone, your union is toothless.

They went into this completely frivolously. It's appalling strategy. There are basically two outcomes: they demonstrate that they can't/aren't willing to strike, reducing the power of the WTU immensely or they do strike and put themselves in extreme legal peril, which could cause enough damage to destroy the union.

The best thing they could do right now is to stop talking about it and act like they never said anything.

Your outside analysis is pretty good. I've been watching this from the inside shocked at how it played out - one major flaw in this case (no secret here, dots are easily connected) is how much she relied on external forces, city council for one, to act on behalf of the union.All talk amounting to no action. Lots of wasted time with the council. Also creating the narrative of "safe" and making assumptions on behalf of parents/guardians, etc really early on and never considering pivoting and/or changing the messaging based on listening to the community rather than telling them what to think.

Notifying the union membership at large what the implications of a strike are, at this point, is a dereliction of duty when it could have been messaged months ago. This was never going to end well.

Yes, whoever created the "only when safe" talking point should be flogged. It means everything and nothing at once. Some on here seem to define "only when safe" to mean "no risk" which is absurd. I can no longer hear people use this phrase without rolling my eyes.

Like they could have fired almost 5,000 people

Do those 5,000 people want to lose their salaries, health insurance and years built toward (but not yet achieved) retirement? Do they really want to play chicken with their careers, particularly those who are eyeing administration as their next step? There would have been many teachers who would not have participated in the strike because, guess what, they don't agree with it. The union did a piss poor job. My child's teacher has done an amazing job.

Teachers have no retirement plan in DC. Just another slap in the face.

Guess what out of those 5k at least half would have participated and that’s enough. No one wants to risk their life. I just started IPL and already there’s 2 positive cases!! It doesn’t make me feel safe to now have to quarantine and wait for my test. It doesn’t make my wonderful kids and families feel safe either. I had quite a few parents message me because their child was riddled with anxiety asking their parents if they could FaceTime me to make sure I’m ok.

So yea teachers are amazing and no one treats us like it. It’s not just about money or benefits it’s about being respected and seen as humans, not just an expendable teaching machine. I came back because I don’t view your children as just a student, I try to give them as much love, care, and nurturing as possible.

But now I’m a bad person because DCPS hasn’t shown me it’s safe. They’ve shown me they don’t care about anything except green and that’s a stark reality check.

Welcome to EMPLOYMENT