Anonymous wrote:

I am a DCPS principal

Anonymous wrote:

I am a DCPS principal

Anonymous wrote:

I am not your principal so I cannot speak for them. That would be something to ask them in a meeting

To the other poster, my staff is happy but also overwhelmed with all of the DCPS mandates and expectations of teaching inperson and virtual. A lot of parents want everything perfect working day 1 and that is just not reasonable. We are taking it slowly and trying to make sure everyone feels part of the classroom community while also maintaining safety.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I'm the person who asked the question. Our Principal made it clear that she pro-WTU even after the SWW Principal was fired and indicated that she believed the parent community supported WTU efforts to keep schools closed too. She didn't pivot until after the parent survey results were released, which is what made me believe this might be the reason.

Why would you support WTU's efforts to keep schools closed? This position seems to be in direct conflict with being an educator.

I am not your principal so I cannot speak for them. That would be something to ask them in a meeting

To the other poster, my staff is happy but also overwhelmed with all of the DCPS mandates and expectations of teaching inperson and virtual. A lot of parents want everything perfect working day 1 and that is just not reasonable. We are taking it slowly and trying to make sure everyone feels part of the classroom community while also maintaining safety.

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.

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 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.

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

I'm the person who asked the question. Our Principal made it clear that she pro-WTU even after the SWW Principal was fired and indicated that she believed the parent community supported WTU efforts to keep schools closed too. She didn't pivot until after the parent survey results were released, which is what made me believe this might be the reason.

Why would you support WTU's efforts to keep schools closed? This position seems to be in direct conflict with being an educator.

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.

+1. I was thinking the exact same thing and I work for DCPS

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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