If you read the previous post, you know that Governor Andrew Cuomo declared war on public schools and their teachers in his 2014 campaign. He continued to lash out at teachers and the UFT as selfish and greedy even after he was re-elected. In 2015, after his election, he told the editorial board of the New York Daily News that the union (the United Federation of Teachers) had turned the public schools into a “teacher employment program.” He echoed the talking points of the charter sector, saying that 250,000 children were “trapped in failing schools” because of the greedy teachers’ union and the rest of the “education establishment.” He declared himself the champion of the state’s charter schools, which enroll about 5-6% of students, as opposed to 90% in the public schools. Cuomo gets large donations from hedge fund managers and Wall Street executives who have been the financiers of charter schools. His $30 million campaign chest consists mainly of donations from the same people who back privatization of public schools.
After Mayor DeBlasio was elected in 2013, he wanted to charge rent for the use of public school space to charters that could afford it. However, Cuomo persuaded the legislature to require the New York City Department of Education to provide free space to charter schools, to allow them to expand as much as they wished, and to pay the charters’ rent for private facilities if they could not find suitable public space.
Cuomo made his contempt for public schools clear in 2014, and nothing he has done since then has changed his image as a foe of public education. He insisted on a 2% cap on local taxes for public school districts that need to raise their revenues; a district can’t raise its own taxes unless the increase is approved by a supermajority of 60%. Cuomo’s hand-picked State University of New York charter committee authorizes charter schools, including Success Academy; it has been extremely lax in holding its charter schools accountable. Only months ago, it voted to allow Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy to certify its own teachers, without benefit of the professional preparation offered by education programs at SUNY or elsewhere.
Cuomo has cynically helped Republicans retain control of the State Senate. In 2014, he won the endorsement of the Working Families Party by promising to help Democrats get elected to the Senate (a bizarre commitment by a Democratic governor). The day after he won the WFP endorsement, Cuomo broke his promise and continued to support the Independent Democratic Caucus, a group of eight “Democrats” in the Senate who caucus with the Republicans. This is not the behavior of a progressive Democrat.
Even now, Cuomo is bullying unions and progressive groups to support him “or else.” The UFT, which Cuomo ridiculed three years ago, has joined Cuomo’s efforts to marginalize small progressive groups or other unions that dare to support Cynthia Nixon. The leader of the Working Families Party said that Cuomo told small activist groups—Citizen Action, Make the Road and NY Communities for Change— that if they don’t support him, they can “lose my number.” Meaning, don’t bother ever to call me in the future. He pressured the unions to stop funding them, deriving them of needed income to survive. These are not the words or deeds of a man with a commanding lead in the polls (currently, 40 points ahead of Nixon). Or a man who knows how to live with dissent.
I will vote for Cynthia Nixon, who is challenging Cuomo in the Democratic primary and now has the endorsement of the Working Families Party. I admire her willingness to step away from a very successful career as an actress to run against Cuomo. Unlike Cuomo, she is a public school parent, and she understands that urban schools in the state have been shortchanged. She has also criticized the insular atmosphere in Albany, where “three men in a room” make all decisions. She has promised an open and ethical government.
Four years ago, law professor Zephyr Teachout ran against Cuomo. Teachout had no money, no name recognition, no media exposure, and a threadbare campaign. Cuomo refused to shake her hand or even to look at her when they came face to face. When they met at a parade, he turned his back to her. Teachout nonetheless won 34% of the vote in the Democratic primary and swept large swaths of upstate New York, which is in deep economic trouble. Teachout, an ethics expert, is now the treasurer of the Nixon campaign.
Cynthia Nixon is fearless. When a journalist asked her why she was qualified to run against Cuomo, she responded, “My chief of staff was not convicted on three counts of bribery. That’s number one.”
A few days ago, Cynthia Nixon blasted Cuomo as a “corporate Democrat.”
“The time is up for corporate Democrats, for politicians who campaign as Democrats but govern as Republicans,” Nixon said to a gathering of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C.
“It can’t just be business as usual anymore,” Nixon said. “I know that our country can do better. We have to turn the system upside down.”
Nixon, who is challenging Cuomo for both the Democratic and Working Families Party nominations, attacked Cuomo for “taking charter school hedge fund money and making education policy accordingly.” She vowed to halt the flow of public funds to charter schools.
Music to my ears, after eight years of watching Obama, Duncan, Jerry Brown, Dannel Malloy, and other prominent Democrats do flip-flops for campaign money from hedge funders.
To those who say Nixon is unqualified because she has not previously run for political office, I say that I would rather vote for an inexperienced candidate who shares my values than for an experienced politician who does not.
Cuomo is likely to get a lot of union endorsements because the unions want to be on the side of the likely winner. They are afraid to cross Cuomo. They know they will pay a price if Cuomo wins and they don’t endorse him. He gets even.
I am not a union member. I am one person. I am free to cast my vote for the person who has the best ideas and the best vision for improving life in New York State for everyone.
Call it a protest vote. Call it a vote of conscience. It is my vote and I will cast it for the person I hope will be the next Governor.
That is Cynthia Nixon.

I’m a Republican, but I agree with everything you wrote here. The conduct of the NYS Senate GOP conference has been shameful. Cuomo and the Senate GOP, along with a weak Assembly run by the Democrats, has seriously undermined public education in New York and seriously harmed the teaching profession. They are one of the main reasons why college teacher prep programs have seen enrollment declines in excess of 50%.
LikeLike
“Call it a protest vote. Call it a vote of conscience. It is my vote and I will cast it for the person I hope will be the next. . . .”
Exactly!
And that is what those of us who did not vote for one of the duopoly’s candidates in the past presidential election believe. And will continue to believe in future elections.
LikeLike
Yes and no. There’s a big difference with this situation. This is a vote for a governor who does not have the power to declare war on another country, does not have access to the nuclear codes and cannot appoint SCOTUS nominees or judges to the lower courts across the country. By all means vote your conscience, that’s what I did. My conscience directed me to vote for Bernie in the primary and then Hillary in the general election because it was obvious that HRC would be the much less damaging candidate by a factor of 10 thousand or so. The same reason that Thomas Frank voted for HRC, as he revealed on the Jimmy Dore show interview. In spite of Frank’s valid criticisms of the Democratic party, he said of course he voted for HRC considering the alternative.
LikeLike
I’ll go with your “yes”, Joe! 🙂
LikeLike
Duane,
This is the PRIMARY. Of course you vote for Bernie Sanders just like Diane Ravitch is voting for Cynthia Nixon.
Once you get to the general election, you see what the choices are.
I would vote for many Republicans over Andrew Cuomo. But if he were running against David Duke, or the head of the NY State Nazi Party and promised to round up all the Jews and non-whites, I’d vote for Cuomo. And I suspect so would Diane Ravitch.
When your choice is a white power fascist and a co-opted Democrat, you vote for democracy and the ability to fight for another day. You don’t fight to destroy this country. At least in my opinion.
LikeLike
So if Cuomo gets the nomination, you’re voting for him in the general? and then you’re going to turn right back around and complain about him….
LikeLike
dienne,
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
If Cuomo wins the primary, I will consider who the REPUBLICAN candidate is. There are some Republicans who are no different than him and if they win versus Cuomo it will make no difference. It’s not as if Cuomo has the power to give lifetime appointments to Supreme Court justices who can thwart democracy and support the end of the very protections that make us a democracy and give us the ability to fight for our candidates another day.
However, I won’t be fooled lnto thinking that a David Duke Trump values-embracing candidate espousing racism and xenophobia is no different than Cuomo. So if a guy who promises tho turn this country into a white power nation and get rid of those rapist and murdering immigrants is running against Cuomo, I will vote for Cuomo.
I guess that’s why we are different. The other reason we are different is because if such a right wing Republican did defeat Cuomo, I won’t be posting on message boards defending that racist and xenophobic right wing Republican against the “attacks” by the evil Democrats who want to stop him.
I leave that to you. I see you have already started on Cynthia Nixon as I was sure you would. Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
So funny how NYCPSP sounds a lot in tone and tenor like the writings of Randi Weingarten. Hmmmmmm………
LikeLike
NF,
lol! I don’t know if that is a compliment or an insult!
For what it is worth, I don’t have an exceptionally high opinion of Weingarten, but I also don’t have an exceptionally low one of her either. To be honest, I don’t know that much about her stances and in general I tend to trust the everyday union teachers more than their leaders.
But maybe this will be revealing — I am not a knee jerk defender of the teachers’ union. Not at all.
When I see the union being bashed unfairly and dishonestly and corruptly, I defend the union.
There have been times in the past when I thought the union was wrong and I would post that as well.
My agenda is not to promote unions. My agenda is to support public schools and public education and stop the people looking to privatize it because I know how dangerous that is. Right now, I see the teachers union is absolutely on the right side of the issue and the people who are against the union are dishonest liars. If I was seeing critics of unions who offered honest criticisms and not lies, I might agree with them. Haven’t found one honest critic of the union lately – just greedy sorts who pretend to care about kids but really care about lining their own bank accounts and promoting themselves as saviors when they are liars and self-promoting frauds. They are disgusting and that’s one reason that I do’t understand why more self-described “progressives” don’t call out their lies but instead by their silence or tacit approval give them credibility.
That’s why I like Cynthia Nixon. That’s why it doesn’t bother me one bit that she talked about “shared sacrifice” and I hope the attacks from trolls making that into some “attack on unions” don’t stop her from speaking honestly about unions and her positions.
Go Cynthia! Don’t like the people who insist you adhere to some “unions are perfect and must be catered to at all costs” get to you. You are allowed to talk about shared sacrifice without it being an “attack on unions” by people who give Cuomo a pass because he throws some unions a corrupt bone.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I would not worry if I am insulting you or not. Please don’t rain on many people’s or your own parade. Why not keep your notion of insults vs. praise to yourself, as I shall keep my notion of it to myself and close personal internet friends. I reserve insulting you as a very personal and private issue. Please don’t get personal. You and I broke up a long time ago. I think it was I who dumped you.
I was thinking that Cynthia’s notion of “shared sacrifice” also included the dreadful rich individuals and corporations paying their fair share of taxes – the way we do in much of Europe, which has dramatically declined in America.
Let’s give Nixon our full support is what I say. But someone should coach her on how speak more strategically without losing any of her purity.
Cynthia, if you’re reading, I too am in the film industry? Would you like to contact me?
LikeLike
Meant: I too am in the film industry.
LikeLike
NW,
Wow, what a gratuitously nasty opening paragraph.
I’m sorry I tried to answer your post honestly. I didn’t realize it was meant to be snark.
LikeLike
Joel,
You are right that makes Hillary Clinton a flawed candidate. But it also made Bernie Sanders a flawed candidate. It also makes Elizabeth Warren and Tom Perriello flawed candidates.
I have yet to see a candidate who isn’t flawed in some way or another. Just look at the Virginia Governor primary — two flawed candidates named Ralph Northam and Tom Perriello running for the Democratic nomination.
The one who supported public education won. And many progressives wished the guy whose flaw was not supporting public education had won.
Why can’t we just agree with every candidate is coming with “flaws” and in the primary you vote for the one whose flaws are less important to you, but in the general, when running against some right wing awful Republican is ENTIRELY flawed, you vote for whoever wins the primary.
That seems far more constructive than spending the general election acting holier than thou because your chosen candidates flaws were somehow less corrupt than the winning candidates flaws.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
First YOU attack great people here and falsely accuse them of not supporting progressives or being trolls, and THEN you play the boo-hoo-look-at-me-I’m-a-victim of what you percieve as someone’s “nasty attack”.
Make up your mind. You have one.
LikeLike
That’s good Diane is supporting the much more obviously progressive and public-education-friendly candidate in the primary. I remember once, in an even more important but comparable situation, when she did not. The rationale was that it was not much a difference anyways; either Democrat will do.
Maybe, as some of us continually stated, the primary election is even more important than the general election.
And if that is true, it also says something about the two parties — specifically, how far apart they really are.
LikeLike
Or perhaps how close together they really are? Because it sure seems that way when it comes down to the lesser of two evils in the main election.
LikeLike
Ed Detective,
You may recall that I did not take a position in the 2016 Democratic primary. I said I would support whoever won the Democratic nomination, and I did.
There was no difference between Hillary and Bernie on education. Neither spoke about K-12 much, and when they did, they both spoke in platitudes. Neither spoke out against privatization or high-stakes testing. Neither offered to move away from the test-and-punish regime of NCLB and Race to the Top.
In the New York Democratic primary, by contrast, Cuomo is firmly aligned with the charter lobby. They have given him millions of dollars. He has pressed for legislation to benefit charters at the expense of public schools.
Cynthia Nixon has spoken out against charters and the hedge funders behind them. She is not taking PAC money. She is a public school parent. She has pledged to support more funding and more equitable funding for public schools and to end charter funding. Unlike the National contest, there is a clear difference in this race.
LikeLike
“There was no difference between Hillary and Bernie on education. Neither spoke about K-12 much, and when they did, they both spoke in platitudes.”
I agree with the first part but when I watched Hillary Clinton at a town hall meeting in South Carolina during the primary, she did not speak in those platitudes that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and their DFER pals use when talking about “good” charters. Here is Hillary:
“…BUT THE ORIGINAL IDEA, ROLAND, WAS TO LEARN WHAT WORKED AND THEN APPLY THEM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. HERE IS A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS. MOST CHARTER SCHOOLS — I DO WANT TO SEE EVERYONE ONE — MOST CHARTER SCHOOLS DON’T TAKE THE HARDEST TO TEACH KIDS. OR IF THEY DO, THEY DON’T KEEP THEM. AND SO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE OFTEN IN A NO-WIN SITUATION BECAUSE THEY DO, THANKFULLY, TAKE EVERYBODY. AND THEN THEY DON’T GET THE RESOURCES AND HELP AND SUPPORT THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF EVERY CHILD’S EDUCATION.
SO I WANT PARENTS TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE CHOICE WITHIN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. NOT OUTSIDE OF IT. BUT WITHIN IT BECAUSE I AM STILL A FIRM BELIEVER THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS ONE OF THE REAL PILLARS OF OUR DEMOCRACY. AND IT IS A PATH FOR OPPORTUNITY. BUT I AM ALSO FULLY AWARE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF SUBSTANDARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS. BUT PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT POLICYMAKERS AND LOCAL POLITICIANS WILL NOT FUND SCHOOLS IN POOR AREAS THAT TAKE CARE OF POOR CHILDREN TO THE LEVEL THAT THEY NEED TO DO. AND YOU COULD GET ME GOING ON THIS BECAUSE THE CORRIDOR OF SHAME RIGHT HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, YOU GET ON THEIR AND YOU CAN SEE SCHOOLS — THERE AND YOU CAN SEE SCHOOLS THAT ARE LITERALLY FALLING APART. I HAVE SEEN THE TERRIBLE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS. IT IS AN OUTRAGE. TO SEND ANY CHILD TO A SCHOOL THAT YOU WOULDN’T SEND YOUR OWN CHILD TO. AND SO, WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVE PEOPLE, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE ALSO PROVIDE OPTIONS WITHIN THE SYSTEM SO THAT PARENTS CAN FIND WHAT THEY THINK MIGHT WORK BEST FOR THEIR KID.”
Choice WITHIN the system
Charter schools not taking the hardest to teach kids and if they accidentally get some, they rid themselves of them.
Politicians not funding public schools in poor areas that they need
I only wish that other Democrats spoke with such “platitudes”. I salute anyone can find me a statement by Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren that points out that charters dump students instead of insisting that the ‘good ones’ are great models and should be promoted.
Because I have looked and even when they were not supporting increasing charters in Massachusetts they were still going on and on about the “good” charters that impress them so much and not a single word about how those very charters push out kids. Not one word.
Just like they both ignore the NAACP’s moratorium on charters because apparently they don’t support it one bit. If these are the “progressives”, then give me the “conservative” Dems like Northam and Kaine who actually support public schools and care about them.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Those were brave and clear words that Hillary said about charters in South Carolina. Unfortunately, soon after she spoke, her chief education advisor wrote an article walking back what Hillary said. The word on the street was that some major campaign donors/hedge funders didn’t like the criticism so it had to be spun, diluted, weakened. I met with that staffer and she made clear that the campaign would oppose for-Profit charters but not nonprofits.
LikeLike
^^by the way, Hillary Clinton made that statement of truth regarding charter schools — clearly stating their problems for all to hear — right to the face of a DFER democrat who was trying to get her to repeat the same platitudes about charters that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and many so-called progressives like to repeat.
Hillary did not take the easy way out that Warren and Sanders do when they repeat all the platitudes about supporting “good” charters. Hillary spoke the truth.
LikeLike
Oh my, Diane. You just got slammed by NYCPSP, and in capital letters, no less. I’m jealous.
LikeLike
Duane, yes, that’s what I was getting at.
Diane, yes, I recall that’s what you said. And here you are supporting one candidate firmly over the other in the primary election, which is the point I’m making. It’s important. We told you then that it was important then, and it still is.
I am a bit surprised that you still believe there was “no difference between Hillary and Bernie on education.” There was a huge difference, especially if you include that Bernie was far better/more credible on the non-education-specific issues (economic issues) that you admit would greatly help public school students and teachers.
All of this was gone over, so many times, and I’m not popping up again to rehash those arguments. Just pointing out inconsistencies, and leading to certain conclusions, as I have always done.
LikeLike
I will say it again. There was no difference between Hillary and Bernie on K-12 education. They both waffled on charters. Bernie said in a town hall that he was in favor of “public charters” but not “private charters.” What was that? Hillary criticized charters when asked a question about them, acknowledging that they don’t serve all kids (suggesting that she had more understanding than Bernie, who is a member of the Senate HELP Committee, which writes education legislation), but her staff quickly reinterpreted and weakened her remarks to avoid offending big donors.
In addition, as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Bernie and other Democrats not only fought to preserve annual testing (the Republicans considered dumping it), they also fought to preserve the NCLB punishments and AYP, but were fortunately outvoted by the Republicans. The losing Amendment was sponsored by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Democrats, including Warren and Murphy, got snookered by Obama and Duncan into believing that high-stakes testing and punishments for teachers and schools was a Democratic idea that promoted equity, not a remnant of NCLB.
Both Hillary and Bernie were woefully deficient in their understanding of education policy and tied to NCLB-Race to the Top remedies that had already failed.
LikeLike
Hillary’s education staffer was Ann O’Leary, a very bright woman who (I think) had been at Center for American Progress, which was always pro-Race to the Top and still believes in charters. I met with her twice. She wrote an article mid-campaign, which I posted here, walking back Hillary’s critique of charters.
I was never invited to meet Bernie or anyone from his campaign. I could have helped him articulate his education views but after years on the HELP committee, he should have known what charters are.
LikeLike
Diane,
Thanks for letting me know about Hillary Clinton’s staffer. Sad that her chief education advisor was willing to sell out the ideas that Hillary Clinton obviously believed in.
Thank you for agreeing with me that Hillary’s words were “brave and clear”. Her time has passed, but I don’t understand why other than perhaps Bill de Blasio and Tim Kaine there are NO national progressives willing to be as “brave and clear” as Hillary.
That’s what I am waiting to hear from progressives. Brave and clear support for public schools and telling it like it is when it comes to charters.
I am hopeful about Cynthia Nixon. But so far, the PROGRESSIVES have been some of the worst and most co-opted politicians on this issue.
At least I knew Hillary Clinton understood the issues. Maybe it wasn’t politically feasible for her to talk about it, but I am very worried that the progressives like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are such true believers in “good charters” and can see no evil in them that they are far more likely to throw public education under the bus.
PS – thank you for ignoring Norwegian Filmmaker’s nasty claim that I “slammed” you. I was not slamming you and the only reason the transcript of what Hillary said was in all caps was because I copied and pasted it from an on-line transcript. I posted to agree with your point.
I hope I can find another politician — progressive or moderate or even Republican — who will speak the brave and clear words that Hillary Clinton did. Maybe one of the candidates in the California Governors’ race will do so. I think standing up for public education loudly and strongly helped Ralph Northam defeat the DFER democrat in the primary. Maybe some other defenders of public schools will be brave enough to stand up for them. It’s a crying shame that the progressive leadership nationally will not.
LikeLike
dianeravitch
And wasn’t that what made her a flawed candidate . Who I voted for but many did not .
So what defines a non profit charter . No need to answer that .
LikeLike
Joel,
I know and understand. I pushed hard to influence the Clinton campaign. When she became the party candidate, I supported her. I have no regrets. Given the choice between her and Trump, it was a no-brainer. The only upside to her loss is that if she had won the election, the Republicans would have impeached her. They are hateful and obsessive.
LikeLike
(Apologies – I posted this in the wrong place above)
Joel,
You are right that makes Hillary Clinton a flawed candidate. But it also made Bernie Sanders a flawed candidate. It also makes Elizabeth Warren and Tom Perriello flawed candidates.
I have yet to see a candidate who isn’t flawed in some way or another. Just look at the Virginia Governor primary — two flawed candidates named Ralph Northam and Tom Perriello running for the Democratic nomination.
The one who supported public education won. And many progressives wished the guy whose flaw was not supporting public education had won.
Why can’t we just agree with every candidate is coming with “flaws” and in the primary you vote for the one whose flaws are less important to you, but in the general, when running against some right wing awful Republican is ENTIRELY flawed, you vote for whoever wins the primary.
That seems far more constructive than spending the general election acting holier than thou because your chosen candidates flaws were somehow less corrupt than the winning candidates flaws.
LikeLike
I find it hard to understand how ANYONE who cares about the future of public education could vote for cuomo. If there is a reader of this blog who can make the case for cuomo — as a supporter of public education — i would love to hear from you.
LikeLike
This is very good.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:01 AM Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: ” If you read the previous post, you know that > Governor Andrew Cuomo declared war on public schools and their teachers in > his 2014 campaign. He continued to lash out at teachers and the UFT as > selfish and greedy even after he was re-elected. In 20″ >
LikeLike
Carol,
He would throw his mother under a speeding train if he merely suspected it would foster his political career. Nothing is sacred to Andrew except Andrew.
LikeLike
While experience has value in most professions, experience in politics is a mixed bag. It may lead to efficiency, or it may lead to unsavory alliances. Cuomo represents the status quo and dysfunction in New York politics. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Cuomo is a bully and a proven enemy of public education. I agree with your statement, ” I would rather vote for an inexperienced candidate who shares my values than for an experienced politician who does not.” The goal must be to get the many parents of public school students and the independent thinkers in unions to come to the same conclusion and show up to vote.
LikeLike
I believe the main reason the unions will help Cuomo is that he has already stated that he will find a work around if unions lose the Janus case. Union leaders want to maintain their cushy guaranteed fat salaries via agency fees. If unions actually put their member’s interests first they would not support Cuomo. The successful teacher’s strike in W. Va. is a perfect example. The state became a right-to-work state in September 2017. Teachers went on strike that was opposed by the union and won by all all accounts.
Isn’t it interesting that Cuomo wants to ‘help” unions if they lose the Janus case? Hint: Agency fees give government control over unions.
LikeLike
I agree. I firmly believe it’s why he came out stating “He will defend unions to the death.. etc.” Found that quite odd since he has fought and voted against them countless times during his time as governor in favor of Wall Street.
LikeLike
In 1998, when “progressive” unions, community groups and citizens launched the WFP, it because most NYS unions (construction, police, healthcare, UFT) were TOTALLY transactional. That was the game everyone had to play. Politicians who wanted to get elected had to “buy” the support of the major political players — essentially wealthy financial interests and unions.
For ex, 1199 and the UFT kept Pataki in office for 3 terms by being the Big Labor muscle behind his campaigns. BIG unions got what they wanted for themselves and to hell with everyone else. (I’ll never forget Randi lavishing praise on Pataki while giving him the UFT’s John Dewey Award.)
So WFP was formed to create a space in the political world for progressives to band together to champion policies that helped WORKING PEOPLE, especially those who did not have the benefit of a union. In NYC, when the WFP’s Paid Sick Leave law got made into law, ONE MILLION WORKERS in NYC got guaranteed paid time off to take care of themselves or their loved ones.
WFP’s earliest pushes were for a higher minimum wage, paid family leave, universal healthcare, and especially campaign finance laws, in order to be able to fight the endemic and epic corruption of the Albany cesspool. BIG entrenched unions like the construction unions had become entities more akin to protection rackets than champions of ordinary working people.
Important community groups like Citizen action of NY, NY Communities for Change and Make the Road NY partnered with the WFP to get several progressive measures passed, but SO much more could have been accomplished if we had had a Democratic Senate and a truly progressive governor. Instead they fought these progressive measures every step of the way Two years ago, Cuomo put his finger up in the air and decided he had to look progressive
LikeLike
Aren’t agency fees a matter of fairness? Why should someone who opts out of union membership get a total free ride off the backs of the dues paying members of the union? The free riders benefit from the raises in salary and other benefits that the union fights for.
LikeLike
Yes and no. I agree that workers who don’t pay still benefit. What should be changed in my opinion is that unions should not be required to defend non members with any workplace grievances. Salaries must remain equal however otherwise employers will hire only people who are opposed to union membership.
LikeLike
Cuomo is a proven creep. Glad to see he’s getting a run for his money, so to speak.
LikeLike
She’s got my vote too.
LikeLike
I support the Janus case. If true what you say that unions do not have to provide benefits to non members such as defending them against abusive supervisors then that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
Since the WFP said they would give their endorsement to Nixon, Cuomo has been acting like a two bit thug.
But he’ll still get re-elected because his capaign donors don’t care as long as he is THEIR thug.
Cuomo is a disgrace to his father’s legacy.
From “The Intercept”
“Andrew Cuomo is acting like Andrew Breitbart,” Westin told me and charged that Cuomo was using a “bully pulpit” to go after groups that didn’t fall in line and endorse him. “What type of world are we living in,” Westin posed, “where the Democratic governor of New York is trying to take down community organizations?”
“He will stop at nothing. He will demolish organizations that serve poor people to accomplish his corporate agenda,” Westin added. “The governor in his maniacal way knows how to go after people. He tries to dig the knife in where you’ll feel the most pain. This is his general operating procedure. When you disagree with him, he wants to kill you.”
LikeLike
We need a real progressive to
represent us.
LikeLike