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

[Anonymous]

"The vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for safe reopening of schools." --President Biden's CDC director

[Anonymous]

I do not support an illegal teacher strike, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they’re still considering a strike. https://www.wtulocal6.net/wtu_teachers_want_to_go_back_to_school

Oh no! Let have another 30 pages where everyone says the same thing over and over again until nothing happens. Then let’s find a new wtu outrage and start over.

what’s your agenda?

How many teachers participated in a strike today? The one everyone was worried about on Dcum?

This is deliberately obtuse. The WTU is talking about a strike. They continue to talk about a strike as of today, as cited above. (Yeah, they are not saying the word "strike" because they want to have some magic ability to say not coming to work or not working to the terms of their contract in a collective way is not a "strike" but please.)

Ok after numerous threads and lots of hysterics on both sides, how many teachers participated in the non-strike, collective action, but not a strike strike?

The union can talk all they want. They are not striking/non-striking. Lots of people on this page are going to have to stop salivating over this. It’s not happening.

Again, this is deliberately obtuse. There was no collective action called for today by WTU, although they continue to discuss it. Ergo, no one participated in a collective action that was not called today. This does not mean one will not be called for later in the week.

I mean, I hope the union doesn't strike (or "strike"). But given they keep negotiating in bad faith and don't seem to accept the results of the recent arbiter's ruling, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

They are not and will not strike. Stop trying to stoke fear

They said today they are considering taking a strike vote. That's straight from their press release. It's just facts.

Liz Davis said today that the executive board will vote on what they want to do next. A strike vote, which is not illegal or binding in any way, is just one option. She also said she was instructing teachers to return to work today!

It’s honestly ridiculous the number of parents that are absolutely wishing for a teacher strike. It seems like more parents than teachers! Do you want your kids in school or not?!

It's honestly ridiculous that you can somehow blame concern about strikes on parents, instead of the union. Which is, you know, threatening to strike (like they did in November).

Right? It's the worst logic!

"Teachers didn't strike!"

"Actually they did in November!"

"But they're not striking now!"

"They're discussing striking!"

"You can't talk about them striking!"

"Why?"

"Because they're not striking a this very moment!"

"But teachers are talking about striking."

"That doesn't mean YOU can talk about striking!"

...apparently only teachers can talk about striking, and parents are forced to only think about the present, and not potential futures.

Do you know how a strike vote works, sweetie? Maybe try getting off the Internet and picking up a book. Just because the exec board discusses a strike vote doesn’t mean there will be a strike. It doesn’t even mean there will be a vote!
Teachers are literally TEACHING IN PERSON CLASSES RIGHT NOW! Some of you will just never be happy.

Actually yes, because I was a union leader for a much larger union. We would not engage in this sort of saber-rattling unless we thought an actual strike was possible; otherwise, we would be compromising our power and negotiating position. If you threaten an action that you are not capable of or willing to do, you demonstrate your weakness and lack of solidarity to management.

Your argument seems to be that they are considering a strike but that we should not be concerned that one may be impending. This only makes sense if the WTU is only slightly better at negotiating than a ripe cantaloupe, although I admit that this is a distinct possibility.

With your experience, I'd be interested in your impression of the WTU leadership actions the past few months. I haven't watched closely the whole time, but much of what I've seen has been closer to your "ripe cantaloupe" end of the scale in terms of messaging and getting outmaneuvered. It's hard to imagine other unions blindly walking themslves into the same situations.

I concur. Liz Davis is leading the union to its downfall.

I also agree that Liz Davis does not seem a strong or particularly savvy union leader. However, I think the DCPS leadership is weak as well which is why the union was able to cause as much chaos and disruption as they did. The DCPS Chancellor since he arrived has put in no effort to build teacher loyalty and that gave him a weak hand to bargain with

[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.

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.

[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.

I wonder if she felt like she had to rely on outside forces because of the lack of internal solidarity. But that would still be a strategic mistake: the rank and file members most likely hoped that the upper echelons of leadership would get something ironed out through the outside authorities and weren't taking very active roles themselves. The traditional strategy is to work on internal support, enthusiasm, and willpower. However, anyone who has done union work knows it is terrifically onerous work. The membership has to believe that they have the power to change things and that they need to do it themselves.

[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.

I wonder if she felt like she had to rely on outside forces because of the lack of internal solidarity. But that would still be a strategic mistake: the rank and file members most likely hoped that the upper echelons of leadership would get something ironed out through the outside authorities and weren't taking very active roles themselves. The traditional strategy is to work on internal support, enthusiasm, and willpower. However, anyone who has done union work knows it is terrifically onerous work. The membership has to believe that they have the power to change things and that they need to do it themselves.

I don't think so, this happened later. The city council was sold as a solution and fixer.

[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.

Thank you for this analysis. This situation is very interesting (and also concerning). Do you think the parent surveys changed anything? I saw our Principal do a 180 from supporting WTU's efforts to remain closed to supporting efforts to reopen. It seemed like WTU, Principals, PTA Presidents, and elected officials were going on the assumption that parents didn't want schools to reopen. Then the surveys came out and clearly showed demand to reopen in many schools. There was significant demand to reopen at our school, and the Principal pivoted right after that. Now WTU can't act like these parents in favor of reopening are on their side anymore either.

[Anonymous]

I find it telling that the union hasn’t released the numbers from the poll the other day.

[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.

Thank you for this analysis. This situation is very interesting (and also concerning). Do you think the parent surveys changed anything? I saw our Principal do a 180 from supporting WTU's efforts to remain closed to supporting efforts to reopen. It seemed like WTU, Principals, PTA Presidents, and elected officials were going on the assumption that parents didn't want schools to reopen. Then the surveys came out and clearly showed demand to reopen in many schools. There was significant demand to reopen at our school, and the Principal pivoted right after that. Now WTU can't act like these parents in favor of reopening are on their side anymore either.

No I think what changed the minds of the principals was the firing of the SWW principal. It terrified principals who started asking where does this end. Then they fell into line.

[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.

Thank you for this analysis. This situation is very interesting (and also concerning). Do you think the parent surveys changed anything? I saw our Principal do a 180 from supporting WTU's efforts to remain closed to supporting efforts to reopen. It seemed like WTU, Principals, PTA Presidents, and elected officials were going on the assumption that parents didn't want schools to reopen. Then the surveys came out and clearly showed demand to reopen in many schools. There was significant demand to reopen at our school, and the Principal pivoted right after that. Now WTU can't act like these parents in favor of reopening are on their side anymore either.

No I think what changed the minds of the principals was the firing of the SWW principal. It terrified principals who started asking where does this end. Then they fell into line.

PP are you the union person or a different poster?

[Anonymous]

I'm not in DC, but live in a strong union city. Our teachers' union did a "work to rule" protest a few years ago. It was awful and more disruptive for families than a strike. At least with a strike the city is going to be motivated to try and find a resolution that ends the strike. With work to rule, students and families (and teachers, because it was miserable) suffered in mostly invisible ways and it dragged on for months and months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering if the "support for teachers" extends to having no distance learning if teachers do strike. Would you be cool with that? For how long?

That’s not supporting teachers. That would be tantamount to supporting educational abandonment of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering if the "support for teachers" extends to having no distance learning if teachers do strike. Would you be cool with that? For how long?

That’s not supporting teachers. That would be tantamount to supporting educational abandonment of their children.

One could argue that being ok with the (possible) learning loss of DL because one "supports the teachers" is also not being supportive of children's education.

[Anonymous]

I would support firing teachers who refuse to go back to the classroom.

[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.

Thank you for this analysis. This situation is very interesting (and also concerning). Do you think the parent surveys changed anything? I saw our Principal do a 180 from supporting WTU's efforts to remain closed to supporting efforts to reopen. It seemed like WTU, Principals, PTA Presidents, and elected officials were going on the assumption that parents didn't want schools to reopen. Then the surveys came out and clearly showed demand to reopen in many schools. There was significant demand to reopen at our school, and the Principal pivoted right after that. Now WTU can't act like these parents in favor of reopening are on their side anymore either.

No I think what changed the minds of the principals was the firing of the SWW principal. It terrified principals who started asking where does this end. Then they fell into line.

PP are you the union person or a different poster?

I am a DCPS principal