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

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.
[/quote]

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 [b]narrative of "safe" [/b]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics