GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

of course it is…to pay for the right to free speech for parents of charter schools. Maybe the PR team at the DOE can provide buses to other parents to promote adequate funding to run publilc schools?

Only the UFT should be able to provide buses.  :)  Seriously, though, Leonie asks a fair question.  I’ll speculate that if we had perfect information on philanthropic efforts to support charter schools as well as UFT efforts to fight them,  I would be satisfied with the public response. 

I work in a unionized charter school. Many of my friends work in charters without a union. They tell me horror story after horror story. Many are afraid to lose their jobs if they speak out. One of my friends was recently fired from her job for questioning whether they were servicing a special needs student the right way. She was told “you are not within the mission of this school,” and was fired on the spot. What the unions do is bring accountability to this “school system.” Who can we rely upon to do this? Our management teams? The charter association? The DoE? Let’s not kid ourselves here, none of those entities care about the teachers or even the students. It’s the unions that care. What are these “unions?” They are nothing more than a band of educators who seek voice in how the children of NY are taught. They are the people in the classrooms who provide a second family to some. What do they get for it? They are demonized by the media, NYCSA, DoE, and Management teams of their schools. It sickens me every time I read an anti-union article in the newspaper. It’s just the very rich using their weapons of propoganda. I am proud to work in a charter school and to be in the teachers’ union. I urge my fellow charter school teachers to take that brave step and get unionized! You have a voice!

“Let’s not kid ourselves here, none of those entities care about the teachers or even the students.  It’s the unions that care.”

“It sickens me every time I read an anti-union article in the newspaper.  It’s just the very rich using their weapons of propaganda.”

Yikes.  Extreme statements like these only hurt your arguments.  As I charter supporter, perhaps I shouldn’t be discouraging you!

Commenters here should stop spreading lies. The buses were provided by the NYC charter center, which is easy enough to find out.

Unlike the UFT’s buses, whose entire, multimillion dollar operating income for lobbying comes straight out of the NYCDOE public coffers through the mandatory dues of their members and therefore is public dollars, these buses were paid for by private donors.

Tell the truth!

On my charter-center-sponsored bus today we calculated the annual contribution of UFT teachers in dues at about $125 million.

That makes for a pretty impressive lobby – a lot more than any corporation I know – when you consider we were arguing for the restoration of our paltry $50 million that was cut by the legislature last year!

UCL, you’ve got to tell your teacher friend to blow the whistle and get out of Dodge. That does not sound like an acceptable school community! (And sorry but a union probably wouldn’t fix it either, just continue the oppositional atmosphere of us vs. them/administration vs. teachers you describe…an atmosphere you don’t find at at least some NON-union charters, where teachers are free to unionize if and when they choose…)

Fact check: every charter school is required by state law to have an annual, independent fiscal audit. These are public documents. What’s the controversy here? It sounds like some “reality” based folks on this strand are more interested in spreading half-baked rumors than actually doing the research to get the facts straight.

Get the facts straight!

What kind of movement intentionally pits parents against parents, students against students, and neighbors against neighbors? There is something manipulative, corrupt, and sick connected to all of this.

I’ve seen these so-called independent audits and they say nothing — even the one about East NY Prep, a school that even the DOE has admitted should be closed due to fiscal improprieties, among other problems. They are like the audits done for Enron.

This why the charter lobby is so intent on blocking the legal ability of the state comptroller from auditing these schools’ use of public funds; rather outrageous, if you think about it. What are they so afraid of?

As for the amount of public funding that charter schools receive, we believe that they get more than their fair share in NYC — over $12,000 per student at the school level, plus for most, free use of facilities, energy costs, transportation, custodial, food, and many other services free of charge that are not reflected in their financial statements, while regular district public schools get only $8,000 per gened student. Charters are not subject to fair student funding, unlike DOE run schools, are allowed to cap enrollment and class size at whatever level they like, and most raise plenty of private money besides, and enroll far fewer high needs students than the communities in which they are located. Accordingly, they are able to afford extensive recruiting campaigns, urge their parents attend rallies and lobby elected officials, and pay for buses to Albany —none of which any regular public school could finance. Separate and unequal indeed.

Peter Murphy,

Please don’t put words in my mouth: I said absolutely nothing about about charter school parents. However, I will say something now: in their (justifiable) eagerness to get the best for their children, they are being manipulated into a situation where their (exclusively individualistic, in true neo-liberal fashion)) interests are being pitted against those of other children and parents in the same communities, and against any real effort to fix all public schools.

As for “wanting to be heard,” gee, I guess you haven’t been around for the past decade or so, as a tsunami of PR and propaganda has been hyping charter schools and denigrating traditional public schools and their teachers. As a self-described “wonk” – by the way, have you ever taught, long enough to have more than a cup of coffee, in an urban public school? – you don’t seem to spend much time reading the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine or any of the other stenographers for corporate ed deform. Or is that too low brow, and beneath the pseudo-scientific pronouncements coming out of B-schools, economics departments and captive ed researchers?

Meanwhile, charters are and remain private entities receiving public subsidies, not all of which are immediately apparent in budget statements. Many of them are managed by for-profit EMOs, and they are creating a separate-and-unequal educational system (or perhaps more accurate to say, a system even more separate-and-unequal than before). That they do this while mouthing civil rights rhetoric in the ultimate service of such as Gates, Broad, the Walton family and others, abusing the idealism of young teachers and manipulating parents in the service of their self-interested agenda, is both dishonest and despicable.

My dictionary defines oligarch as, “a member of a small governing faction.” Perhaps I should have also added “plutocrat” in my previous post. Having used their immense fortunes, gained through monopoly (Gates), the building of white-flight suburbs and gated communities (Broad) and the denial of living wages and benefits to their workers, (Walton) to purchase and drive policy in the urban public schools – schools that they would never in a thousand years dream of sending their own children to – your feigned shock and outrage over my use of the term rings false.

Where were these people while the urban public schools were being starved of resources for decades? Oh, that’s right, they were making their billions, hiring lobbyists to insure lower income and capital-gains taxes for themselves, hiring union-busting law firms and building their art collections. Now, smelling an opportunity for even more power, they’ve set their sights on public education, “the Big Enchilada” as Edwards and Co. described it in an investment recommendation to its clients. After that, it will be on to dismantling Social Security, no doubt.

By the way, despite my many criticisms of the UFT, I’m proud to be a union public school teacher. The UFT, despite its many shortcomings, has a legitimacy and standing in the schools that you – who funds your wonkery, by the way? – and the malanthropists could never hope to have. The union, however imperfectly, represents the people who are in the classroom with the children of NYC every day. EVERY DAY. We don’t pass through the buildings on photo ops, or drive-by observations, cooing about how “cute” the kids are. Nor do we spend our time creating or shilling for private boutique schools funded with public money. No, we teach them EVERY DAY, in spite of the distractions, challenges and tragedies too many of them face. And I’ll make no apologies for whatever political power the union is able to muster in Albany or elsewhere.

If I have to choose between Michael Mulgrew and Broad/Gates/Walton/Bloomberg and their ilk, that’s an easy one: I’ll go with the union every time, and I’ll be doing right by the children of NYC in more ways than you could possibly imagine.

Just a reminder, Michael F., Eva Moskowitz sends her own kids to her schools.

KS,

As usual, your response is uninformed, or disingenuous, or both:

– Who exactly profits from charter schools? Well, there’s Edison (Harriet Tubman Charter
School), National Heritage Academies (Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School), Victory Schools
(Bronx Global Learning Institute, Grand Concourse Academy, Merrick Academy, NYC
Charter High School for Architecure and Engineering, Peninsula Prepatory Academy,
Sisulu Walker Children’s Academy, South Bronx Charter School for the Arts).

– As for mom-and-pop charters, they are destined to go the way of small town mom-and-
pop retailers when Walmart comes to town. Do you really think you’ll be allowed to
continue in the face of your corporate patrons’ business model, which will inevitably
include scaling up (like in agriculture: “get big or get out”) and consolidation. You’ll either
be merged with KIPP on some other chain, or they’ll find a reason to close you.

– As for teacher turnover in charter schools, you must be joking: recent stats show that
charter teachers are 240% (!!!) more likely than public school teachers to leave teaching
within 5 years. Take a look at ENYP, where the entire faculty was gone over the course of
one year

– As for Moskowitz, she’s the exception that proves the rule (and a lot of other nasty things).

– As for charter teachers only organizing “on rare occasions,” well of course: as at-will
employees, they’re terrorized. Look no further than Merrick Academy, which hired
Jackson, Lewis, the most notorious union-busting law firm in the nation, when their teachers
organized.

– Finally, despite your harumphing about the 21st century, you and your pals are in fact
taking us headlong into the 19th century, with sweatshops for students and teachers, with
low wages and no protections.

– And please spare us your arrogant, holier-than-thou comments about our mediocrity and
your presumed superiority: it’s totally unsupported by the facts.

RBE,

The entire UFT operating budget is siphoned from public dollars because of mandatory participation. Yes, teachers can refuse to sign the card, but the money will still be deducted from their paychecks. How’s that for democracy?

If teachers and paras actually had the choice to join the union, instead of being extorted dues out of every paycheck whether they agree with UFT policy, strategy and activities or not, then these monies could be considered legitimate private dollars. They’re not, they are public monies that the City tithed in perpetuity to the UFT after the strike in ’60.

The UFT has the biggest “no-bid” contract in NYC education. Year after year, the Democratic politicians carry water for the UFT and their relentless pursuit for power, access and a bigger slice of the budget pie. While New Yorkers and americans of all stripes are losing hours, having their benefits slashed and getting laid off in huge numbers, the UFT has the gall to demand two 4% raises. Of course teachers deserve more money, as do the administrators, school aides, custodians, kitchen cooks and nurses, but it just isn’t there. The teachers current contract is just fine and until the city recovers financially, not one municipal union should get a raise. They’ll get it in retro eventually, as we all know.

There is no transparency in the union negotiation process. The UFT’s offensive spin of “we don’t negotiate in public” leads to closed door, dealmaking sessions that doesn’t serve kids and it doesn’t serve the public good. We all know that if Bloomberg would have given the UFT a new contract, they would have rolled over on all of the recent DOE school closures, just as they have for the past 8 years.

The biggest private vendor in NYC education is the UFT. They are not accountable to the public, yet they have a guaranteed percentage of the billions spent to pay our teachers and pedagogical staff her in the city. They are not a democratic union and Unity steamrolls their slates every year to shut out oppositional voices. The few poor souls who organize outside of Unity with any success get co-opted (new action) or are made completely irrelevant (ice/tjc). Just go to a DA and see who is called to speak, who is recognized and who gets their motions to the floor.

Are there private interests in charters? Of course. But its no more than the private monies the DOE has been pushing forever. Anyone remember what Caroline Kennedy did before she was supposedly our next Senator? Oh yea, she was a fundraiser for private capital for the DOE. Next.

The calls for charter school transparency? Sure, great, okay. They’ve got 99 schools. How about they do that right after the UFT does? For almost 50 years, they have been co-managers of the city schools along with the Board of Ed and they deserve the same amount of praise or blame as you give Klein and his predecessors.

tell the truth

—TTT, how do you consider the union dues teachers pay “public dollars”? The money is from the salary teachers make. Sure, it originates from taxpayers, but even you would admit that teachers are actually working for this money, yes?

Now charters run by for-profit corporations do actually receive “public dollars” directly from taxpayers, but resist outside independent auditing of their “businesses”. Open up the books and maybe people wouldn’t think that Mistress Eva and the other charter operators were using taxpayer dollars to charter buses to Albany to lobby for public school privatization.

Also, this is about the kids. Not about the teachers. Or the unions. Or the politicians. Or the parents. The children. Numbers speak volumes. If only people would spend as much time educating themselves as they do spreading misinformation and half-truths, then maybe we could actually put energy into providing a superior education for NYC children. 

“A recent study showed that students in New York City’s charter schools — who are selected randomly, by lottery, and are 90% African American and Latino — have closed 86% of the gap in test results between the poorest neighborhoods of the city and ritzy suburbs like Scarsdale, which is known for its excellent schools.”

“There are national implications to this fight. As Shanker pointed out, American schools have been slipping for decades — our students are now 32nd internationally in math scores, 10th in science, 12th in reading. It will be impossible to rebuild our economy — to create the sophisticated, high-paying jobs we need — as long as we have an archaic, industrial-age school system. It’s also hard to keep a strong democracy with a citizenry that is increasingly uneducated and ill informed.”

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1957277,00.html#ixzz0e3Q4sXcl

“Studies have found New York City students at charter outperform students at conventional public schools and have credited charter schools with narrowing the achievement gap between races within the city and between the city and the suburbs.”

http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2010/01/17/the-battle-over-the-charter-school-cap/

Thanks for mischaracterizing some of my statements, continuing to make assumptions about working conditions at charter schools, and feeding the Wall Street conspiracy theory mill. There’s a thriving grassroots charter community, and even the “chains” are starting to take pedagogy more seriously.

Since you asked, our HR language came not from a union busting consultant (union busting is illegal, you know) but from our internal HR person, who spent 20 years in first public administration and then the mental health non-profit sector before joining the charter movement.

I’ve got two words for our educational crisis and it’s probably not where you believe the blame lies: low expectations. And I would never single out teachers as to blame; the ones that “can’t” are just part of the problem. Bad principals are more accountable than bad teachers in my cosmos.

As for late stage capitalism, it sounds like something out of Terminator 5: Revenge of Broad. I’m not buying.

I’d prefer my child to have a longer, more relaxed school day than rush to get everything done with barely enough time to eat lunch or have recess. Now they have time for foreign languages, ethics, art, gym and music several times a week. In PS, there was not enough time for any of that. 

8-4 has been far more appropriate for my child than 8:15-2:15, and I know I am not the only parent who feels this way. 

And the truth is that the parents of charter schools work and send their kids to after school anyway. Which is usually a bunch of teenagers babysitting the kids. I’d rather my kid be with his teachers any day and spend less time in after school.

But of course, those of you who don’t face the same issues that the rest of us do don’t consider these implications. 

What is so interesting is that we have a bunch of people telling us that we are being manipulated. That we as parents could not possibly research and make the best choices for our kids.

Regards,

Mr. Casey,

Seems the UFT and AFT ought to put some of their dues treasure chest into debunking this alleged urban legend, because I found in a quick web search a rash of (ostensibly nonpartisan) local papers around the country repeating the Shanker quote, along with the following decidedly centrist information sites treating it as authentic:

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/albert_shanker/

http://www.answers.com/topic/albert-shanker

Certainly lots of far right wing sites repeat it as well, it’s a juicy one for the anti-big-government set. I’d be glad to stop repeating it.

And so the way to demonstrate that the Shanker quote is not an urban legend, you produce web pages which repeat the quote without any citation of a Shanker publication or news article quoting Shanker?

I hope that the teachers in your school have a better understanding of how to use the Internet for research, because somebody needs to know what and how to teach the students, and the principal clearly doesn’t.

Michael F.,

I’m retracting my retraction of my quotation marks for “union-busting” Jackson, Lewis. Those were initially YOUR words after all – see your comment above on Feb. 2nd, 10:28 pm.

I think that was Groundhog Day…or are you going to try to mischaracterize that as well?

I really don’t know anything other than what you’ve written here about Jackson, Lewis, but I’m not pleased that our argument which originated in facts has wound down to this kind of accusation.

I’m not interested in denying anyone their rights, and if our teachers want to unionize I would never stand in their way – but since the UFT specializes in creating on oppositional us-vs.-them workplace, further justifying their need for dues by casting administrators as the evildoers and teachers as the victims in need of defense, I’d look for the best representation possible to make sure that everyone involved knows their rights but also knows their facts. I’d certainly look up Jackson, Lewis, and use whatever funds are at my disposal as an administrator with our board’s permission. If there is truly something amiss about this firm, then we wouldn’t hire them. But I’m not taking your word for it; if I listened to you I would move to Canada because I’m not hearing anything about a corporate takeover of the government up there but it’s all gloom and doom down here.

New York Times on Jackson, Lewis:

December 14, 2004
How Do You Drive Out a Union? South Carolina Factory Provides a Textbook Case
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

SUMTER, S.C. – Tom Brown, the leader of an anti-union campaign at the EnerSys battery factory here, made some surprising admissions in recent testimony about how his campaign had been run and financed.

Mr. Brown, a longtime maintenance man, acknowledged that a mysterious consultant known as Mr. X had advised him on how to oust the union and had helped him write fliers that called the union’s leaders names like “trailer trash,” “Uncle Tom” and “dog woman.” Not only that, Mr. Brown testified that envelopes filled with cash had often been sent to his home. He said he had no idea who had sent them. “I don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” he said.

Across the South companies have long used bare-knuckled tactics to fight unions. But now a surprisingly detailed roadmap to such tactics has emerged from an unusual court battle between EnerSys and its law firm over whose wrongdoing – the company’s or its lawyers’ – led to a $7.75 million settlement that EnerSys entered into after federal officials accused it of 120 labor law violations in its seven-year effort to eliminate the union.

The company has accused the firm, Jackson Lewis, of malpractice and of advising it to engage in illegal behavior. The law firm says that EnerSys ignored its sound advice and that the company is trying to avoid paying its legal bill.

The wrangling has cast a spotlight on how the company fired and harassed the union’s top officials and aided Mr. Brown, the anti-union leader, although federal law prohibits companies from financing or otherwise assisting efforts to get rid of a union.

The litigation also highlights a little known but thriving business in which law firms and consultants work with corporations to beat back unionization efforts. Jackson Lewis, a national law firm based in New York, describes itself as “committed to the practice of preventive labor relations.”

“Union membership is declining because employers will stop at nothing to prevent employees from having a union,” said David Bonior, the former Michigan Congressman who is now president of American Rights at Work, an advocacy group fighting violations of workers’ rights. “Unfortunately, 75 percent of employers use union-busting consultants to fight unionization drives.”

Labor experts call the EnerSys case unusual, with federal labor officials accusing the company of firing the top seven union leaders, spying on workers, refusing to bargain and ultimately closing the 500-worker plant to retaliate against the union. Its $7.75 million settlement is evidence of how far the company strayed from the law. But labor experts also say the case opens a window onto some common tactics.

“Jackson Lewis is a key player in the union avoidance industry,” said Fred Feinstein, former general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board. “This kind of aggressive anti-union campaign is not unusual.”

Jackson Lewis says it did nothing wrong.

“Jackson Lewis zealously represents its clients,” Kevin A. Hall, a lawyer representing the firm, said. “In doing so, the firm always honors the letter and the spirit of the law. Jackson Lewis was neither involved in the initial campaign by the union to organize the employees nor involved in any effort to assist the employees to oust the union.” EnerSys refused to comment.

This tale began a decade ago when the International Union of Electrical Workers began rounding up support at the factory, which produced giant batteries to power forklifts and provide backup power to cellphone towers.

The union petitioned for a unionization election when many workers voiced dismay about meager pensions, bullying supervisors, production speedups and safety problems, especially with the high temperatures and lead used in production.

The company, then called Yuasa, hired Jackson Lewis to help mount a last-minute anti-union campaign. The company required employees to listen to speakers saying the union did not want to help workers, but only wanted their dues money. Management posted pictures of tombstones and skulls and crossbones in the cafeteria to warn employees that unionized factories often closed.

But on Feb. 23, 1995, the workers voted 191 to 185 to unionize. Management was livid.

“They said that if the union came in the company was doomed,” Paulette Jackson, a union steward and quality control worker, said. “They fought tooth and nail. They didn’t want a union in the South. Period.”

The company fired Ms. Jackson, accusing her of failing to detect some faulty batteries, but her supervisor later told the National Labor Relations Board that the charges were trumped up.

The company’s tactics led to many tangles with the labor board, which ultimately filed a sweeping complaint against EnerSys, accusing it of 120 violations of federal law, among them wrongly firing Ms. Jackson and other union leaders, assisting the anti-union campaign, improperly withdrawing union recognition and moving production to nonunion plants as retaliation.

As a result of all the litigation – including the battle between the company and its lawyers – detail after detail of what had happened emerged. In a deposition, Darryl Davids, the factory’s director of human resources, testified that John Craig, the company’s president, had once said: “We need to do whatever we’ve got to do to get rid of this union, regardless of what it may cost us.”

After the unionization vote, management refused to negotiate a contract, challenging the union’s victory. After a two-year legal battle, a federal appeals court ruled that the union’s victory was valid and ordered the company to bargain. During those two years, the company refused to grant raises.

Once negotiations began, the company said it faced such hard times, even though the economy was booming, that it would lay off workers unless the union accepted a 10 percent pay cut. Management indicated that a new “gainsharing” plan would offset those cuts by providing bonuses for increased productivity.

Pressured by union leaders from Washington, union officials and workers in Sumter reluctantly approved management’s proposals, they say.

But then the company stunned the workers, cutting most salaries by 16 percent, not 10 percent. Workers complained that the gainsharing bonuses were minuscule, even though productivity had increased.

“They gave us a bum deal on that gainsharing,” said David Bunker, a machine operator whose pay fell to $11.07 an hour from $13.26. “The union was trusting the company to do what is right. That didn’t work.”

The union protested the tiny bonuses, and the dispute went before an arbitrator. After two more years came a final ruling that EnerSys had improperly manipulated the system to give paltry bonuses.

The arbitration’s star witness was a former human resources director, Choice Phillips. Mr. Phillips said the factory’s budget had provided no money for bonuses, indicating that management had never intended to offset the pay cuts.

Mr. Phillips also testified that the plant manager, Doyle Thresher, used to leave cash on a table in his office for Mr. Brown, to help finance the anti-union campaign. The plant manager, Mr. Phillips testified, said the cash was “trash” that Mr. Brown was to pick up.

EnerSys said in legal hearings that Mr. Phillips had been fired for sexual harassment, an allegation he denies. The company won a defamation suit against him, but in November, a federal judge vacated that judgment, concluding that EnerSys had lied when it denied that it had helped the anti-union campaign. Mr. Phillips said he had been dismissed for refusing to participate in the company’s illegal conduct.

“They did everything they could to make the union look bad,” Larry Brown, a union vice president, said.

Many workers became angry with the union over the pay cuts, especially because they received no raises from 1995 to 2001.

The anger fueled the effort to oust the union. Tom Brown organized anti-union meetings, sent mailings to the plant’s 500 workers and asked them to sign cards saying they wanted the union out.

Mr. Brown testified that Mr. X, the company consultant, had given him advice. EnerSys officials later admitted that they had paid the consultant $39,000 to help guide the anti-union campaign. Mr. Brown also acknowledged that company officials had given him stamps for anti-union mailings.

The company also went after union officials directly. In June 2001, EnerSys fired Vincent Gailliard, the union’s president, during an arbitration hearing over the bonuses, accusing him of lying. EnerSys announced that same day that it was withdrawing recognition from the union, asserting that a majority of workers had signed cards saying they no longer wanted a union.

“They figured if they got rid of the leaders, the rest of us would buckle under,” Cathy Moody, another fired union official, said.

The labor board accused EnerSys of fabricating its allegations against Mr. Gailliard, asserting that it fired him to cripple the union and cow workers.

Facing a downturn in orders, EnerSys began several rounds of layoffs in 2001, often giving no advance notice to the union. On Sept. 10, 2001, EnerSys announced it was closing the factory, again giving no notice.

Federal law generally requires that factories give unions notice before large-scale layoffs and plant closings.

Union officials said EnerSys’s tactics were an egregious version of what many corporations do. According to N.L.R.B. statistics, companies illegally retaliate against 20,000 workers a year for supporting a union. And according to a study by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University, half the companies that face unionization campaigns threaten to close their plants and one fourth fire at least one union supporter to derail the campaigns.

Faced with the sweeping complaint by the N.L.R.B., EnerSys agreed to pay $7.75 million to settle the board’s charges and the union’s lawsuits over the failure to pay bonuses or give notice of the layoffs.

After the settlement, EnerSys sued Jackson Lewis, accusing it of malpractice, including misleading federal investigators, giving illegal assistance to Mr. Brown and engineering “a relentless and unlawful campaign to oust the union.”

“The company gave carte blanche to the law firm – the law firm was pretty much running the plant,” Mr. Gailliard said. “It came back and slapped them in the face, and now they want someone to blame.”

EnerSys said that Jackson Lewis had engaged in malpractice by recommending that the company withdraw union recognition when the firm must have known about the illegal anti-union aid. Federal law bars the withdrawal of union recognition when companies have financed a decertification effort. EnerSys also accused Jackson Lewis of wrongly advising it not to give the union notice of the layoffs and plant closing.

Jackson Lewis has mounted a vigorous defense. It has accused EnerSys of obstructing justice and paying “hush money” to Mr. Brown by placing him in a job with a company that services the shuttered battery factory and by paying his salary there. EnerSys insists that the arrangement was not intended to buy silence.

Jackson Lewis says it consistently gave sound advice.

Mr. Hall, the lawyer representing the firm, said, “Sometimes when clients ignore their attorneys’ advice and end up with disappointing results, especially where legal fees are still outstanding, they deny responsibility for their own conduct and sue their lawyers for malpractice, hoping that the case will settle with a forgiveness of the legal fees.” Jackson Lewis says EnerSys owes it more than $270,000.

Frank Macerato, general counsel for EnerSys, which is based in Reading, Pa., declined comment, saying the company would not discuss matters in litigation.

Today the factory lies quiet, and many workers remain unemployed. Jackie Clemmons, one of the earliest union supporters, said the firings, the lack of raises and the plant closing had all sent a powerful message.

“After all this, I don’t think you could pay the people here to join a union, to mess with a union,” Mr. Clemmons said. “And I don’t believe the union would want to deal with us anymore down here.”

That NY Times article makes it sound like the electrical workers’ union is the only party that didn’t do anything wrong there.

I found a follow up to this article on Alternet: “The lawsuit was ultimately settled or withdrawn on undisclosed terms with no court finding of wrongdoing against Jackson Lewis.” The fact of no wrongdoing by JL sounds specious at best.

After reading this, I’d be more than hesitant to hire JL. Sounds sleazy indeed.

Nationally (and admittedly I don’t know much about unions other than what I learned in school and as a UFT member and my family’s history supporting them vigorously abroad), unions and workers need protections because the balance of power is generally strongly in management’s favor. In New York City, of course those laws still apply, but the UFT has as much or more clout than just about any interest group you’ll find.

The UFT isn’t a group of blue-collar country folk looking to protect their rights. We’re talking about suits with expensive lawyers deciding just which government elections they will decide and which they’ll stay out of. It’s just not the same balance of power. It’s one thing to oppose unfair and abusive labor practices. It’s quite another to block progress and protest sensible expectations (like, say, writing out goals for students) on inane grounds. I don’t deny that sometimes teachers’ needs and students’ needs coincide – in fact that’s true almost all of the time. But all of the above means that to many educators who do care more about kids than adults in schools, the UFT’s reputation lies in the swampy ground of the self-serving and manipulative.

You’re assuming that teachers’ real interests coincide with the UFT’s interests most of the time. I haven’t found that to be true.

In my experience, many charter school teachers have run screaming from the UFT, which they as a polarizing, interfering force rather than a helpful representative.

I know too many teachers who have had issues the UFT didn’t want to deal with for political reasons to think that the UFT is above using its own members as political pawns.

Face it: Largely through its own success, the UFT has morphed from a needed organization providing a revolutionary public service to a mammoth special interest PAC fighting to maintain and grow its political influence by any means necessary.

The behavior of many CSB members was reprehensible. It isn’t just them and the UFT, it was a colossal failure of leadership in the form of chancellors who didn’t have enough time to institute real reform and a legion of principals not focused on what matters for student achievement (namely, strong school culture including high expectations, consistent curriculum, high quality pedagogy/assessment and strong family involvement) because of either (a) their own incompetence or (b) the interference of middle management and the district level.

By the way, nobody “places” themselves in the upper reaches of the Obama administration. Obama does the placing. And with his revolutionary grassroots fundraising, he is not as beholden to Daddy Warbucks as other politicians.

If you’re worried about Gates and Broad, etc., corporatizing our schools then you have to ask how a school like this one gets caught up in the charter movement: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/education/07foster.html?ref=education. Is this school, and the many others like around the city and the country, just a blip in the charter movement for your corporate raiders? Seems antithetical to their ‘conspiracy’ if you ask me.