The MTA tried the same old playbook: drag out negotiations, refuse to bargain in good faith, offer flashy non-pensionable cash bonuses instead of real raises, and push healthcare costs onto newer workers. But the unions didn’t cave. They organized, took a strike authorization vote, prepared their members to fight, and rejected weak deals that sold out the future.

That is what real union power looks like. Not backroom politics. Not press conferences. Workers standing together and refusing to be divided.

The political class and corporate managers always tell workers to lower expectations, accept less, and be “realistic” while executives and insiders cash in. Railroad workers showed the country something different: when working people stay united, leadership has to answer to the members — not the other way around.

UFT members deserve the same fighting spirit: contracts with real raises, protected healthcare, long overdue respect for paraprofessionals, retirees, OT/PTs and newer members, and leadership willing to draw a line instead of settling for scraps.

Related Links:

Teamsters: 3,500 Workers Walk Out as BLET Teamsters, Union Coalition Launch LIRR Strike

Gothamist: LIRR strike shuts down nation’s busiest commuter train line

NY Post: LIRR strike begins after MTA fails to reach wage hike deal with union

The difference between Monday night’s ABC Town Hall hosted by Amy Arundell, a true leader, and David Kazanksy, the candidate for TRS Trustee, was in stark contrast to yesterday’s “Town Hall” hosted by President Mulgrew and the official UFT. The difference could not have been more like DAY and NIGHT. At ABC’s Town Hall on Monday, members were allowed to ask questions on their own in an open forum. At Mulgrew’s meeting yesterday, it was the OPPOSITE.

First of all, only UFT Chapter Leaders were invited to Mulgrew’s meeting; and most disturbingly, none of us were allowed to speak directly. We were only able to submit questions in writing and apparently only some of them were then read and shared. UFT leadership seemed to be really scared that someone would have pointed out that David Kazansky is by far the better candidate. David has served on the TRS Board before, for 9 years, and he is independent. Instead of letting chapter leaders talk and ask questions DIRECTLY, UFT leadership at Mulgrew’s meeting read questions that FELT screened and chosen in advance. Over 80% of the answers to those questions were, “You should email that question to the TRS election email address.” Could they not have anticipated at least some of the questions and got clarification before? This was then followed by UFT Secretary Michael Sill coming on-screen to repeat the name of the UFT’s “official” candidate numerous times and saying it was the UFT Delegate Assembly that chose to nominate this candidate and not Michael Mulgrew, which is technically true, but we were not given a choice of candidates to nominate. Another thing: Chapter Leaders were told to send a picture of the election tally sheet from their school to their UFT District Rep. This seems like an attempt to pressure UFT chapters to vote a certain way. Or it could be interpreted this way. Of course we won’t participate in that in my school, but the inappropriateness of it baffles me.

The presenters at yesterday’s UFT town hall didn’t even read the question that I had submitted, which really was quite a soft question. I had asked what UFT leadership plans to do with the TRS Trustee election process going forward, so that we as a union can advocate for a better way to vote in future TRS elections. Not only was there NO ANSWER from UFT leadership. My question was NOT READ and my voice was NOT HEARD.

At yesterday’s UFT town hall, had there been a chance for me to get on the microphone again like I did at the UFT Delegate Assembly back in January, this is what I would have asked: “How does rank and file UFT membership hold our own UFT leadership accountable to serve us and support us? If it wasn’t for the caring leadership of Amy Arundell, David Kazansky and their fellow unionists at ABC, we would have barely known anything about this election. Have you abdicated your responsibility to serve your UFT membership? While of course the TRS Trustee Election is a DOE-run election, UFT Chapter Leaders and UFT members on the ground were scrambling for a week to find out information and figure things out; and then the official UFT holds a town hall just a few hours before the actual voting starts on May 13. That’s not serving the membership of our union, that is ABANDONING the membership. Thank God the movement led by ABC, Amy Arundell, David Kazansky and many more is growing quickly. This TRS election is a wakeup call for many members to see that we desperately need new leadership that works with membership and allows a voice.”

Let’s hope for an upset victory today. Whatever the outcome - as Amy said Monday night, we are building this movement stronger and stronger. David Kazansky ran a highly professional campaign that was very impressive. He deserves to win this race hands-down, and he laid the groundwork for much more to come inside our Union. There are so many talented leaders in ABC that inspire. Amy Arundell, David Kazansky and the team of ABC inspire a new generation of rank and file members by listening to us, by giving us voice, by embracing our concerns. Mulgrew’s leadership feels stale and insecure in comparison, micromanaged and controlled. Members don’t fall for this type of leadership anymore.

Democracy worked in Hungary. It will work within our Union as well. I am hopeful. Vote today for David Kazansky and GET OUT THE VOTE in your schools. Ask your colleagues to stay for the election. Ask them to vote.

This Monday (5/11) at 7PM: The TRS Town Hall Every UFT Member Needs to Attend

A Better Contract (ABC-UFT) is hosting a TRS Town Hall this Monday, May 11 at 7pm, facilitated by Amy Arundell. We’ll break down how the TRS election should be run and explain why every member needs to vote for David Kazansky.

Don’t miss this crucial chance to protect our future and take back our union!

THIS IS ABOUT YOUR PENSION

This election helps decide who has a voice over your retirement. David Kazansky is the only independent, member-driven candidate focused on protecting pensions without political pressure. Let’s show up and make our voices heard.

Register here: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/lHRQhNwyQkid3fhGeuciww#/registration

Register for town hall

The powers that be (both DOE and UFT) don’t want you to know everything about the 2026 NYC TRS Teacher Trustee election. And even worse if you did know there is an election, they don’t want you to vote and are refusing to conduct the election at a time that will allow members to vote by insisting it takes place from 3-5pm, 40 minutes AFTER most members’ work day ends!!

What can we do about it? WE CAN HELP FIX THIS IN 5 MINUTES.

1. Every one of us has the right to vote during the day in the TRS Trustee election Wednesday May 13th. The DOE, CSA, and UFT leadership are telling principals that voting must happen between 3 and 5 p.m., but that is a misinterpretation of the law. The law allows for modifications to that voting time (https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-22363)

2. Another part of this election that no one is speaking about is the right to a candidate forum at each school. The deadline to hold this forum is this Monday, March 11th.

Let’s take action now—together, we can ensure every member’s vote is counted.

This Monday at 7PM: The TRS Town Hall Every UFT Member Needs to Attend

A Better Contract (ABC-UFT) is hosting a real member Town Hall this Monday at 7 p.m, facilitated by Amy Arundell. We’ll break down how the TRS election should be run and explain why every member needs to vote for David Kazansky.

Don’t miss this crucial chance to protect our future and take back our union!

THIS IS ABOUT YOUR PENSION

This election helps decide who has a voice over your retirement. David Kazansky is the only independent, member-driven candidate focused on protecting pensions without political pressure. Let’s show up and make our voices heard.

Register here: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/lHRQhNwyQkid3fhGeuciww#/registration

Register for town hall

Learn more about David

Sign petition & email the Chancellor

DOE TRS election instruction sheet

A summary of the most recent meeting held in February (meeting #2) is below. The next UFT Election Task Force meeting (#3) is this Tuesday, May 5, at 4pm.

UFT Election Task Force Meeting #2

Date: February 4, 2026

Time: 4:00-6:00pm

Location: UFT Headquarters (52 Broadway, Manhattan)

Topic: Robust Electronic Voting Systems (REVS) & Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) Compliance

Task Force Members in Attendance:

A Better Contract (ABC)

• Daniel Alicea – Special Education Teacher, UFT Delegate, MS 53

• Katie Anskat – High School Teacher, UFT Delegate, Queens Metropolitan High School

• Chad Hamilton – Special Education Teacher, UFT Chapter Leader, 75K231

ARISE

• Michael Shulman – Retiree, UFT RTC Vice Chapter Chair

• Olivia Swisher – Art Teacher, PS/IS 30

Unity*

• Nancy Aromando – UFT District 15 Rep

• Ariel Arroyo – UFT District 20 Rep

• Doreen Berrios-Castillo – Retiree

• Carl Cambria – UFT Negotiator

• Michael Herron – UFT Grievance Dept.

• Sean Rotkowitz – UFT Staten Island Borough Rep

• Servia Silva – UFT Manhattan Borough Rep

• Nina Tribble – Retiree

• James Vasquez – UFT Special Rep for High Schools

Not in Attendance

• Priscilla Castro (UFT Paraprofessional Chapter Chair)

• Dana Falciglia – UFT District 11 Rep

UFT Staff Present

• Yasmin Colon – UFT Election Coordinator

• Beth Norton – UFT General Counsel

Guest Speaker

• Adam Bellotti – labor attorney from Bredhoff & Kaiser, Advocates for Labor and Progressive Institutions. Mr. Bellotti specializes in LMRDA compliance, union elections, and electronic voting litigation.

*It was noted all 11 task force members representing Unity are full-time, at-will UFT employees or retired (no in-service, full-time educators).

Meeting Summary

The UFT Election Task Force convened on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 4pm to receive briefing from a labor attorney on the feasibility, risks, and legal implications of adopting electronic voting for UFT officer elections. The session featured a presentation by Adam Bellotti, a labor attorney with the law firm Bredhoff & Kaiser, Advocates for Labor and Progressive Institutions. Mr. Bellotti was introduced as having extensive experience in Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) compliance, union election administration, and federal litigation involving electronic voting systems. Mr. Bellotti’s analysis at today’s meeting focused on legal precedent for DOL cases pertaining to electronic voting, as well as current technological capabilities in electronic voting. Mr. Bellotti’s presentation provided the UFT Election Task Force with an introduction to the opportunities and potential challenges associated with modern remote electronic voting systems.

Mr. Bellotti began by outlining the structure of current electronic voting platforms, explaining the sequence of credential distribution, voter authentication, ballot marking, client‑side encryption, secure transmission, storage, decryption, and tallying. He emphasized that technological advancements, particularly client‑side encryption and distributed decryption keys, have significantly improved the security profile of electronic voting since the mid‑2010s. These developments reduce the risk that election voting vendors or election administrators could access ballot content, thus maintaining voter secrecy and strengthening the integrity of electronic voting processes.

Mr. Bellotti’s presentation highlighted the legal framework governing UFT elections. Because the UFT represents a number of private‑sector employees, UFT local officer elections fall under Title IV of the Labor‑Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). This statute requires secret ballots, meaningful observer rights, and adequate safeguards to ensure election integrity. Mr. Bellotti explained that these requirements, particularly ballot secrecy and observability, pose the greatest challenges for any union considering electronic voting.

To illustrate these challenges, Mr. Bellotti reviewed the two major Department of Labor (DOL) enforcement actions involving electronic voting: the 2007 case involving the Allied Pilots Association (APA) and the 2017 case involving the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA). Mr. Bellotti served as counsel on the APFA case. In both cases, the DOL concluded that the electronic systems in use did not adequately protect ballot secrecy or provide sufficient observer access. In the APFA court case, the DOL’s lawyers called an electronic voting expert who demonstrated that the election voting vendor in that particular election could have theoretically linked each voter to their individual vote; even though no such breach had occurred. Under the LMRDA, the mere possibility of linking a voter to their vote creates a presumption that the election outcome may have been affected. Mr. Bellotti said such a presumption is extremely difficult to rebut in court. This legal standard remains a central risk for any union adopting a hybrid voting system that includes remote electronic voting. Mr. Bellotti pointed out that electronic voting system security has improved significantly since the APFA case was heard nearly 10 years ago.

Mr. Bellotti also discussed the evolution of federal guidance. In 2024, the DOL issued a revised Compliance Tip that reflects technological advancements and input gathered during a 2023 listening session conducted with unions, electronic voting experts and electronic voting vendors. The updated guidance acknowledges that a persistent link between voter and vote is no longer, by itself, grounds to invalidate an election. Instead, the DOL will focus on whether anyone actually accessed or used such a link to connect voters to their respective votes. While this represents a meaningful shift, Mr. Bellotti stressed that the Compliance Tip is legally nonbinding, does not create a safe harbor, and can be revised or withdrawn by any federal administration at any time in the future. Still, Mr. Bellotti emphasized that following the current Compliance Tip is the best available strategy for minimizing risk of an election being set aside by the DOL. The current DOL Compliance Tip remains unchanged since 2024.

The presentation also addressed practical considerations. A union’s governance documents must explicitly authorize electronic voting. This would require electronic voting to be authorized by the UFT Constitution. Otherwise, any election conducted electronically could be automatically set aside by the DOL. Electronic voting systems carry high upfront costs but scale efficiently and affordably for large union memberships. UFT’s ballot is long and complex with hundreds of candidates. This results in potential usability challenges for electronic interfaces, particularly on mobile devices. Mr. Bellotti noted these challenges could feasibly be addressed with a well-designed and robust electronic voting system with a user-friendly voter interface.

Mr. Bellotti emphasized that any electronic voting system should be paired with a non‑electronic alternative, typically mail‑in ballots and/or in-person voting, to avoid disenfranchising members without reliable internet access. This introduces additional administrative complexity, including the need to prevent double‑voting and to establish clear rules for determining which ballot takes precedence if a member votes more than once.

Mr. Bellotti explained these challenges could feasibly be overcome with careful planning and thoughtful voting system development. He then explained the significant potential benefits for remote electronic voting in union elections. Electronic voting can increase voter satisfaction, reduce voided ballots, and improve access for retirees and members with mobility or logistical barriers. When properly designed, electronic voting systems outperform mail-in ballots in accuracy and error reduction. Mr. Bellotti cautioned that voter trust remains a significant hurdle because electronic voting is relatively new to many voters. Another important consideration, particularly in the current political climate, is that even a fully compliant election can be challenged by a single member. The ability of a single member to challenge election integrity exists regardless of voting format.

Mr. Bellotti reiterated that while electronic voting is increasingly feasible for unions worldwide and in the U.S., it requires careful planning, strong vendor controls, and a willingness to accept some compliance risk. Mr. Bellotti pointed out that all forms of voting, including mail-in ballots and in-person voting, present with ongoing compliance risks.

Q&A Summary

After Mr. Bellotti’s presentation, the meeting shifted to a Q&A session. Task force members raised practical, legal, and logistical concerns about electronic voting, hybrid systems, and the realities of UFT’s large and complex elections. What followed was a wide‑ranging conversation that revealed both the concerns and the possibilities surrounding a hybrid voting model.

How often have electronic voting elections been overturned?

A task force member began by asking how many electronic elections had actually been set aside by the Department of Labor (DOL). Mr. Bellotti clarified that while only two cases have been fully litigated in federal court, several unions have had elections set aside without litigation because they chose not to contest the DOL’s findings. In other situations, individuals filed election complaints incorrectly and the DOL never reached the point of investigating the merits of those complaints.

In total, Mr. Bellotti estimated about 7-9 elections have been set aside nationwide over a timespan of roughly 15 years. This number is very small, especially when compared to election complaints for mail-in and in-person voting. It nevertheless remains important to be mindful of the reasons why these elections were set aside, so that UFT does not experience similar problems.

Mr. Bellotti explained that mail‑in and in‑person elections are overturned far more frequently, usually due to campaign violations or nomination‑notice issues.

Could mail‑in ballots also violate secrecy?

One task force member pointed out that even paper ballots sometimes contain barcodes or markings that could theoretically link a voter to their ballot. Mr. Bellotti agreed. No system is perfect, and mail-in ballots can also raise secrecy concerns that would be subject to DOL complaints. The difference is that mail‑ballot case law is well‑established over decades, while electronic voting is still developing.

Are younger union members less likely to use mail-in ballots?

A task force member pointed out that generational trends clearly show declining use of postal mail, even among older adults. Mr. Bellotti agreed, noting that while U.S. data are limited, European studies show that electronic voting increases voter satisfaction and may increase turnout among certain groups. He cautioned that turnout effects of electronic voting are not yet conclusive and not necessarily guaranteed.

Could UFT run a mock election?

A task force member asked whether a mock election, such as electing a “sergeant‑at‑arms” or running a symbolic vote, could help build member trust in an electronic voting system. Mr. Bellotti said yes, many unions do this. Some unions pilot a lower‑stakes race electronically while in the interim keeping major races on paper. Other unions have run a “favorite color” or “World Series prediction” election to let members and observers test the integrity of the electronic voting system.

Mr. Bellotti emphasized that mock elections are one of the best tools for building voter confidence.

Can election challenges be filed anonymously?

A task force member asked whether someone could challenge an election anonymously. Mr. Bellotti was unequivocal: No. Challenges must be filed with the member’s full name and identifying information, first through internal union procedures and then with the DOL if necessary.

Does following the DOL’s 2024 Compliance Tip guarantee safety?

A task force member asked whether following the current electronic voting Compliance Tip would protect the union from challenges. Mr. Bellotti said no. The DOL Compliance Tip is helpful guidance that would most likely be taken into consideration, but it is not legally binding and is not a safe harbor. The DOL can change the electronic voting Compliance Tip at any time. In litigation, the DOL is not bound by its own prior guidance.

Still, Mr. Bellotti emphasized that following the current Compliance Tip is the best available strategy for minimizing risk of an election being set aside by the DOL.

Can ballot timeouts be fixed?

A task force member raised concerns about UFT’s extremely long ballot and whether the voting screen might “time out” while voting electronically. Mr. Bellotti said this is a known but solvable problem. Vendors can allow the electronic voting system to auto-save and pick up where the voter left off. This would enable voters to sign-in to their in-progress electronic ballot if their connection drops. Mr. Bellotti pointed out that long and complex ballots might increase the risk of voter frustration and disenfranchisement. Another task force member pointed out that the current mail-in ballot, which is multiple pages of small print, already causes frustration and disenfranchisement of UFT voters, as evidenced in UFT’s exceptionally low voter turnout for officer elections. Among those UFT members who do vote in UFT officer elections, an overwhelming majority of over 90% engage in slate voting and would not need to search for individual candidate names on an electronic ballot. For those who wish to do so, a search function to type in the name of a candidate, as well as listing candidates in alphabetical order within each category (e.g., Officers, NYSUT Delegates, AFT Delegates), would expedite the process and would likely be more efficient than searching through multiple pages of a paper ballot.

How long do DOL investigations take?

A task force member asked how long it takes for an election challenge to be resolved. Mr. Bellotti explained that investigations and litigation can take years, and can even span an entire election cycle. In such a situation, incumbent officers would remain in office during that time. In such cases, the parties typically settle by agreeing to a DOL‑supervised rerun in the next regularly scheduled election.

Task force member Michael Shulman shared information about his own case, in which his election victory for UFT VP of High Schools was challenged by Unity. After five months, Mr. Shulman’s case was settled and the election was rerun. Mr. Shulman won by an even larger margin and took his rightful place as the elected VP of High Schools.

Could DOL investigations expose undocumented UFT members?

A task force member asked whether the DOL subpoenas of a union concerning an election complaint could reach employer HR records, potentially exposing UFT members who are undocumented immigrants. Mr. Bellotti said he had never seen the DOL subpoena employer HR files in a union election case. The DOL’s focus is on election records, not the immigration status of employees who may or may not have participated in a union election.

How does ballot availability work on phones?

A task force member asked whether UFT’s massive ballot could be meaningfully displayed on a smartphone. Mr. Bellotti said this would be a design challenge and something the union should ask electronic voting vendors directly. A search function where voters could type in the names of candidates, as well as listing candidate names in alphabetical order, could be significant steps toward resolving the complexity of the ballot. Again, it was noted that over 90% of UFT members engage in slate voting and would not need to search for names on a ballot.

What about double‑voting in a hybrid system?

Task force members asked how to handle situations where someone votes both electronically and by mail. Mr. Bellotti said this is common and must be addressed through clear, pre‑established rules. Options include:

• Counting the first ballot received and voiding the other.

• Counting the in‑person ballot and voiding the electronic ballot.

• Counting the second ballot received and voiding the first.

• Voiding both ballots if someone votes twice.

Mr. Bellotti said any rule is acceptable as long as it is uniformly applied.

Does electronic voting increase voter turnout?

A task force member asked whether voter turnout would rise if electronic voting were offered. Mr. Bellotti said the evidence is mixed. Electronic voting increases voter satisfaction and helps increase voter turnout among certain groups (retirees, younger members, people with mobility issues), but overall turnout effects vary.

Mr. Bellotti emphasized that no one can reliably predict voter turnout in a union election when initially implementing electronic voting. The only way to truly gauge voter turnout would be to run a well-publicized, well-organized election with hybrid voting options that include electronic voting, mail-in ballots, and in-person voting. Turnout would then need to be analyzed across multiple elections implementing electronic voting.

How do PSC-CUNY, CTU and other unions handle hybrid voting?

Task force members noted that the Professional Staff Congress (PSC-CUNY) and Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) use both mail-in and electronic voting. Mr. Bellotti confirmed that many unions run hybrid systems successfully but stressed that public‑sector unions are not subject to the LMRDA, so their systems cannot be used as compliance models for UFT. Another task force member pointed out that like UFT, PSC-CUNY and CTU both represent a number of private sector workers and would also be subject to the LMRDA. A task force member pointed out that UFT is much larger than both PSC-CUNY and CTU combined. Another task force member pointed out that while this is true, electronic voting is easily and affordably scalable to much larger populations of voters. A request was made for union representatives from PSC-CUNY and CTU to attend as guests at the next Election Task Force Meeting on May 5 to share their experiences with remote electronic voting systems.

Conclusion

The next UFT Election Task Force Meeting (meeting #3) will be held Tuesday, May 5 (rescheduled from initial date of April 29), 4-6pm at UFT Headquarters (52 Broadway in Manhattan). An additional meeting, if needed, will be held May 20. The recommendation of the Task Force majority will be presented May 18 or June 1 to the UFT Executive Board.

Meeting adjourned at 6:05pm.

Let’s be honest about what it actually was.

An unpensionable bonus.
A recurring payment that never touched base salary.
A substitute for real raises.

Even at the time, the proposal raised serious questions. Why a bonus instead of a salary increase? Why legislation instead of a contract campaign? Why something temporary, when paraprofessionals need permanent change?

Those questions were never answered.

Instead, paraprofessionals were given a timeline. Leadership said the check would arrive by June 2025. That promise carried people through the election and past it.

Then June came and went. No legislation. No check. No results.

Summer passed. Then fall. Only after members began asking hard questions did the campaign reappear, briefly, between October and December 2025.

It failed.

The explanation shifted. The blame landed on the outgoing City Council Speaker. But even then, nothing fundamental changed. There was no pivot to a real contract campaign. No organizing effort for permanent, pensionable raises.

Just the same promise, repackaged and extended.

A “Respect Check” someday.

Now we’re in a new political landscape. A new Council Speaker. A new mayor endorsed by the union. And still nothing. The bill is stalled. It won’t make it out of committee. And at the latest committee hearing, the union wasn’t even in the room.

After a year of promises, and leadership didn’t even show up.

At a certain point, this stops looking like a plan that fell short. It starts to look like something else entirely.

The “Respect Check” functioned as a political tool: specific enough to sound real, but flexible enough to delay. A promise that could carry through an election, absorb frustration afterward, and be revived when needed.

Not a solution. An instrument.

Because a real solution would require something different. A contract campaign. Member organizing. A willingness to take risks and, if necessary, strain political relationships in order to win lasting gains.

That didn’t happen.

Instead, we saw a strategy built on managing expectations rather than meeting them.

And over time, that has consequences. Not just for paraprofessionals’ pay, but for the union itself. It breeds cynicism. It teaches members that promises are temporary, that timelines are flexible, that outcomes are optional.

That is the real damage.

Not just a missing payment, but a deepening disconnect between leadership and the people they represent.

What We Would Do Instead

We wouldn’t promise a yearly bonus and call it progress.

A recurring “Respect Check” that isn’t pensionable isn’t a solution—it’s a workaround. It keeps base salaries low, keeps long-term costs off the books, and leaves paraprofessionals in the same position year after year.

We would take a different path.

We would build a real contract campaign and an organizing campaign to match it. Aimed at winning permanent, pensionable raises for paraprofessionals in the 2027 contract.

Because the reality is this: the city is already talking about budget deficits. We haven’t had a contract that keeps up with the cost of living in decades. No one is going to hand us what we deserve out of goodwill.

And that means this can’t be a campaign built on access or relationships alone.

It has to be built on power.

Yes, the union can point to petitions, rallies, and hearings. But too often, those efforts have been performative: actions that create the appearance of movement without building the kind of sustained, organized pressure it actually takes to win.

We would do it differently.

We would start by building real structure at the school level, revive the contract action teams made up of paraprofessionals and their coworkers, trained to organize, not just mobilize. That means mapping worksites, identifying leaders, and having one-on-one conversations that bring more members into active participation.

We would set clear, escalating benchmarks, not just events, but measures of power: how many members are engaged, how many schools are organized, how visible and coordinated our actions are across the system.

We would unify the demand: permanent, pensionable pay increases for paraprofessionals as a central issue for the entire union, not something siloed or sidelined.

And we would align our political strategy with that organizing, not substitute for it. That means showing up with members, applying pressure when necessary, and being clear that endorsements are earned through results, not promises.

Most importantly, we would be honest with members about what it takes to win.

If we rely on the kindness of politicians, we will keep getting what we’ve been getting.

If we build the power of the rank and file—school by school, member by member—we give ourselves a real chance to win something different.

That’s the choice.

Not a check that comes and goes.

A salary you can build a life on—and retire on.

Please use the graphics and flyers below to share on social media, email, posting in your school building, stuffing mailboxes, and handing out to co-workers.

David Kazansky social media and website:

Facebook: david4trs https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61586074705494

Instagram: davidkaznyc http://instagram.com/davidkaznyc

🌐 http://wetrustdavid.org

Flyer to post at school/stuff mailboxes/hand out:

Thank you!

Join TRS Trustee candidate David Kazansky for three virtual workshops on your pension, your TDA, and your financial wellness. David will break it down clearly and make sure you know how it all works.

REGISTER TODAY:

Tuesday, April 14 - 5:00 PM - How Your Pension Works

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/DoIJxYzDSZW-_J5pfzsPWQ

Thursday, April 23 - 5:00 PM - How Your TDA Works

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/h9B5FU3vSryqmqq1zsdlMQ

Wednesday, April 29 - 5:00 PM - Financial Wellness Foundations

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/JsMzh4MNSCSLVvA1reHk0A

Each spring, teachers complete a program preference sheet to indicate the classes they would like to teach, ranked in order from one to three. This is an important opportunity to express your preferences, but it must be completed carefully to protect your position.

You should list three different choices that are within your appointed license area. Even if you hold an additional license, listing classes outside your appointment can create flexibility for administration to place you in assignments you may not want. It is essential to only select programs you are officially appointed to teach.

Teachers should also be specific in their preferences. For example, common branch teachers may indicate a preference for ICT or general education, and special education teachers should clearly state the type of program and age range they prefer, such as ICT or self-contained settings.

This form is strictly for program preferences. Do not include personal information such as plans for retirement, leaves of absence, pregnancy, or whether you plan to return next year. Additionally, requests for cluster positions or compensatory time roles are not part of the preference sheet process and must be submitted separately when those opportunities are available.

Members are encouraged to be as detailed as possible in the designated comment section and to keep a copy of their completed sheet for at least three years for their records.

It is critical to submit the preference sheet on time. Failure to do so may result in administration assigning a program without your input.

If you believe your program assignment violates contractual rights, you have two days from receiving your program to file a reorganization grievance. Members should contact their chapter leader immediately if concerns arise.

For teachers on probation, it is especially important to select classes within your license area, as teaching out of license may impact tenure decisions.

Program preference sheets are not just routine paperwork, they are a key part of protecting your assignment. Taking the time to complete them thoughtfully can make a significant difference in your program for the following school year.

So as you fill yours out, ask yourself: Are you protecting your program or leaving it up to chance?

Dear UFT Members,

Thanks so much to everyone who has been getting the word out about David Kazansky’s campaign for re-election as a TRS Trustee. Extra thanks to everyone who has been collecting petition signatures to support the campaign and get David on the ballot.

These are our last three days to collect signatures!

CLICK HERE to download the nominating petition for David Kazansky. Here is the URL to share with everyone you know at other schools: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osuZHljew7Gr8S9nWdaYBc_xR2hrlFhg/view

Whether you can collect 5, 10 or 100 signatures, we need your help!

Any in-service contributor to TRS can sign the petition. This includes teachers, paraprofessionals, related service providers, secretaries, psychologists, nurses and administrators (yes, principals and assistant principals can sign). Under the obtuse rules for the TRS Trustee election, a person can sign only one nominating petition. Signing a petition for more than one candidate will result in both signatures being canceled and uncounted. So make sure you are only signing for David Kazansky.
One and done!

CLICK HERE to download the nominating petition for David Kazansky. Here is the URL to share with everyone you know at other schools: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osuZHljew7Gr8S9nWdaYBc_xR2hrlFhg/view

Included with the blank petition are detailed instructions that include a mailing address to send your collected signatures. If it is easier for you to have us pick up signed petitions from you in-person, or if you have any questions or ideas for helping, please email us at info@uftmembers.org. You can also email the David Kazansky campaign team directly at info@wetrustdavid.org.

The TRS Trustee campaign of David Kazansky and Ben Morgenroth is about accountability, transparency, and protecting our pensions. TRS is our money. UFT members need real representation that is transparent and accountable to all UFT members.

wetrustdavid.org

Let’s get this done!

Thank you and have a great Spring Break!

Let’s talk about School Based Options, also known as SBOs.

Because this is one of those topics that comes up every year, and somehow still feels rushed, unclear, or decided without enough real conversation.

Let’s fix that.

What is an SBO, really?

A School Based Option gives UFT members at a school the ability to collaboratively modify certain parts of the DOE/UFT contract or create positions that are not automatically included. That’s a big deal.

We are talking about decisions that can shape your daily work experience. This can include:

• Changes to the school schedule

• When professional development takes place

• Other Professional Work (OPW)

• Parent conference dates

• Creation of comp time positions

These are not small adjustments. These are structural decisions. And anything that impacts your day to day work deserves your voice. This process is supposed to be collaborative. An SBO can be proposed by either the principal or the chapter leader on behalf of the chapter.

But here is the key point:

This is a member-driven process. A principal cannot require an SBO vote to happen. In order for an SBO to pass, at least 55% of UFT members who vote must support it. Voting is conducted through a secure system called Election Buddy.

Let’s be clear. SBOs are not supposed to be top down. This is supposed to be collaborative decision making. Timing matters more than people realize. An SBO is only in effect for one school year. That means if your school wants to continue an SBO, it must be voted on again every year. The only exception is when an elementary school moves from an eight period day to a seven period day. This is why timing is everything.

We are approaching April break, which is exactly when these conversations should be happening. Not in June. Not last minute. Not rushed through in a single meeting.

The real issue: lack of conversation. Too often, SBOs show up as a near final decision instead of a discussion. That is where things go wrong.

The SBO process should be:

• Thoughtful

• Transparent

• Inclusive

Staff should have the opportunity to:

• Ask questions

• Understand what is being proposed

• Share concerns

• Offer ideas

Because when people feel informed, they engage. When they don’t, well, they simply don’t care.

The bottom line: SBOs work best when they reflect the collective voice of the school. Not assumptions. Not pressure. Not last minute decisions.

If the conversation is not happening in your building, it is important to ask why and to make sure it starts. Because at its core, this process is about collaboration.

And shared decision making is only real when everyone has a seat at the table.

See below for a statement from NYC Retirees, in response to UFT President Michael Mulgrew’s most recent attack on Intro 1096 earlier this week.

For a video of NYC Retirees’ Response, CLICK HERE.

This topic will be discussed more in-depth tonight, 3/13, at 5pm during NYC Retirees’ Friday Night Live: https://www.youtube.com/@nycretirees

NYC Retirees Stand Firm In Protecting Retiree Healthcare

NEW YORK, March 13, 2026 — A Response to the United Federation of Teachers Attacking Retiree Legislation That Protects Our Healthcare

For years, Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, tried to force retired municipal employees off of traditional Medicare and into a cheap, inferior alternative called Medicare Advantage. Although this would have harmed retirees, it would have benefited active workers, as the savings achieved by diminishing retiree healthcare would have funded benefits for active workers. In order to disguise his effort to fund active worker benefits on the backs of retirees, Mr. Mulgrew falsely assured retirees that Medicare Advantage was just as good as traditional Medicare. After retirees exposed this lie and voiced their outrage, Mr. Mulgrew reversed course and opposed Medicare Advantage. We’re thankful that he did – we now consider him an important ally in the fight against Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage saga showed that, with enough outrage from the retiree community, Mr. Mulgrew can be compelled to do the right thing.

Mr. Mulgrew once again needs to be compelled to do the right thing. There is a bill pending in the City Council (Intro 1096) that would prohibit the City from diminishing the healthcare benefits of Medicare-eligible (i.e., elderly or disabled) retirees, who never bargained for or consented to the diminishment of their healthcare in retirement. Mr. Mulgrew is opposed to this bill, which, again, would simply protect retiree healthcare. The reason is simple: he wants the ability to sell out current retirees in order to negotiate raises and other benefits for his active worker members. The bill would prevent him from doing that. To be clear, the bill would allow him and other active workers to bargain away their own retirement benefits. It would just prevent him from bargaining away the benefits of current retirees, who have no seat at the bargaining table.

In short, Mr. Mulgrew opposes Intro 1096 because it would deny him the ability to sell out helpless, unrepresented retirees in order to fund benefits for his constituents (active union workers). But he can’t openly admit that. So, like he did with Medicare Advantage, he has to falsely assure retirees that he is looking out for their best interests. He claims that Intro 1096 would set a “bad precedent” by making retiree healthcare a subject of legislation. According to him, this could embolden the City to pass legislation taking away union members’ bargained-for employment benefits. This argument makes no sense for multiple reasons.

First, we already have a law that protects retiree healthcare: New York City Administrative Code § 12-126. It was passed in 1967 and provides sweeping protections for retirees, including the right to free health insurance coverage, a HIP-HMO plan, and reimbursement for Medicare Part B premiums. Intro 1096 would merely extend the healthcare rights long granted by § 12-126. Contrary to Mr. Mulgrew’s fearmongering, § 12-126 has never emboldened the City to pass legislation taking away union members’ bargained-for employment benefits.

Second, the reason the City has not passed, and cannot pass, legislation taking away union members’ employment benefits is that it would violate the Taylor Law. The Taylor Law is a state statute that guarantees unions the right to collectively bargain for their benefits. The City could never pass legislation that violated the Taylor Law. Mr. Mulgrew’s “boogeyman” legislation—a hypothetical City Council bill denying union members employment benefits—would blatantly violate the Taylor Law. Intro 1096 would not. Intro 1096 explicitly allows unions to negotiate for any retiree healthcare benefits they wish for themselves (even if those benefits are better or worse than the benefits prescribed by the bill). Moreover, Intro 1096 is about retirees, who are not covered by the Taylor Law because they are no longer in a collective bargaining unit.

When Mr. Mulgrew tries to tell you that opposing Intro 1096 is in retirees’ best interests, don’t let him fool you. Hold his feet to the fire like you did with Medicare Advantage. If you do, we believe that he will do the right thing. And when he does, we will once again embrace him as an ally.

    1.  The “fight” to get paraprofessionals the “respect check”

    2.  “Fighting” to “Fix” Tier 6  

Depending on how locked in you are to our union, you may know that one or both of these things are happening. And then there are some of you who may not realize that any of these things are happening. That’s okay. The urgency you are being made to feel about these items is by design. It’s performative. The constant “fighting” for these issues, that feel so big and out of our control in our everyday lives, makes us feel powerless and tired, so that even if we want to participate, it’s a struggle to know where to begin. Not to mention the fact that before we know it, the tone has shifted and the issue no longer seems that urgent.

Let’s start with the “Para Respect Check.” And let’s rewind. When this was introduced last year, during the election for the officers of this union, you may have thought it seemed super shady. You were not alone! EVERY Paraprofessional in NYC was told they would get $10,000 every single year for the rest of their careers, starting in June of 2025. This would be provided by the City Council who would pass a law to make it happen. What? How would that be possible and who would even agree to that? 

Don’t misunderstand. 

We all know paraprofessionals need to earn a living wage, but we also know we are part of a larger workforce of other low-wage union workers in our school communities. How could the City Council give such a wage increase to only one title? And why did this become an urgent issue for Mulgrew at this time, RIGHT NOW? Especially in light of the fact that Mulgrew had an opportunity to negotiate para pay raises during the last contract negotiation, but he explicitly told the negotiating committee members they could not discuss wages. The Chapter Leader for the paraprofessionals even argued in late 2024 that paras didn’t really need a raise. What woke up the leadership? An election year where there were serious threats to their power?    

What were we told? Mulgrew contended that this bill would solve all the years of the DOE getting away with not having to adhere to special education compliance because this bill would solve the lack of paraprofessionals coming into and staying in the profession. We were never supposed to think this was so obviously close to Mulgrew’s upcoming election. If a person dared to question the timing of this bill, you would be called out in your own union hall as people who want to “do this union harm”, did not want paras to be paid more, along with all of the nonsense that Mulgrew says to the very union members who pay dues to be represented with principles and competence. So, Mulgrew tried to silence those who questioned why there are so many substitute paraprofessionals that this UFT leadership can never get the DOE to hire full-time at schools every single year. 

We are never supposed to think about solving the root of the problem. What we are told is that what Mulgrew decides and when he decides it is above questioning or analysis and should be supported because he says so.

Tier Six is another example. This change to our pension structure happened in 2012. At that time, we were told by Mulgrew and his mouthpieces, that there was nothing that could be done to prevent Tier VI. There was an economic downturn and if we defended our pension structure and prevented a new tier from being created, we stood to lose our defined pension benefits all together. This is one of Mulgrew’s favorite tactics–the scare tactic.

So, Tier VI was created and this union said and did nothing about Tier VI until when? 2024. The year before the election for union officer positions. Why in 2024? Young people aren’t connecting to the union. Let’s pick an issue they care about. Not because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s the opportunistic thing to do. What does the UFT actually do? Tag along the state union’s “pep” rally. Then the day after, announce that Tier VI changes are coming. That is what today’s town hall is supposed to be about. 

Listen carefully to not only what is being said but how it’s being framed. Mulgrew will talk about what people want. But what are people actually getting? What does it have in common with the “Para Respect Check”? It’s all performative and completely divorced from the real power of the membership. Instead Mulgrew uses the needs and wants of the membership to create fake outrage, insincere urgency, and then a happy ending. 

BUT, we don’t have any substantive changes to either paraprofessional pay or Tier VI. Actions speak louder than words and we are tired of being wound up and mobilized, only to find out we can’t quite cross the finish line or what we end up with is not at all what has been described to us as the probable outcome. To some, this may sound like naysaying or bitterness, but what evidence do we have that it’s not true? There is no para respect check. The original bill has been changed to something very different. Mulgrew even referred to it as a “program” at the Delegate Assembly yesterday. Tier VI hasn’t substantively changed. The contract campaign has not started. We still have disrespectful working conditions. We can’t even be treated with respect when we try to go to work after a historic blizzard. That is still an outstanding issue too. As is OT/PT pay, curriculum, student discipline, and general respect for all professionals in the school system.

For those of us who have some time in this system, we often look back to how we felt when we started in our profession and joined this union. There were feelings of pride because this was a respected career, we belonged to a powerful and popular union, and we had a pension. Now we are seeing our union’s reputation and relationships being ruined in this city because of one man’s ego and love of power. Mulgrew doesn’t believe in term limits, building capacity, and passing a torch. We have spent more time defending this union at our dinner tables than feeling that sense of pride we all once had. If you have family members that are police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers, etc. you know this to be true. Many if not most of us who have whole families in the municipal labor workforce will find a common theme at our dinner tables. “Mulgrew screwed us.” He plays on words by saying in one instance that MLC negotiates healthcare and in the next instant proposed Mulgrewcare (aka Medicare Advantage) and assured us this was going through the MLC because we hold the most votes of the MLC. Now he takes no credit for the complete screw up that was, and is now pivoting all of our thinking to these newest (but not new) urgent items. Mulgrew will continue to talk in circles until you are too exhausted to participate.  

This is a call to action to listen to what this man says, ask questions, and don’t doubt the voice you hear saying to yourself that this just doesn’t sound right. You are not alone. We are all in this together and we need to continue to push, no matter the cost, for the union we all deserve.

If you are able, help David with nomination petitions so he can get on the ballot for the TRS Trustee election. Thank you!

Registration link for March 12 Pension Workshop:
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/z2iqRxqhS6yPMMapp1zxCA#/registration

Registration link for March 18 TDA Workshop:
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/yRJ7yRJBQiGgPKEXa7NxDQ#/registration

Registration link for March 24 Financial Wellness Workshop:
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/pOMoBqMOTvGKxMwSsSlWZg#/registration

Petition link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osuZHljew7Gr8S9nWdaYBc_xR2hrlFhg/view

Dear UFT Members,

Thanks so much for the fantastic turnout at our ABC Mass Meeting last week. Nearly 400 attended, and over 700 registered! As we heard from TRS Trustee candidate David Kazansky and running mate Ben Morgenroth, the critical importance of an independent fiduciary voice on the TRS Board cannot be overstated. Our pensions depend on it. The first step towards making it happen is to collect petition signatures to put David Kazansky on the ballot. Our goal is 3,000 signatures, and we have three weeks to do it! Our deadline is March 30.

CLICK HERE to download the nominating petition for David Kazansky. Here is the URL to share with everyone you know at other schools: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osuZHljew7Gr8S9nWdaYBc_xR2hrlFhg/view

Whether you can collect 5, 10 or 100 signatures, we need your help!

Any in-service contributor to TRS can sign the petition. This includes teachers, paraprofessionals, related service providers, secretaries, psychologists, nurses and administrators (yes, principals and assistant principals can sign). Under the obtuse rules for the TRS Trustee election, a person can sign only one nominating petition. Signing a petition for more than one candidate will result in both signatures being canceled and uncounted. So make sure you are only signing for David Kazansky.
One and done!

CLICK HERE to download the nominating petition for David Kazansky. Here is the URL to share with everyone you know at other schools: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osuZHljew7Gr8S9nWdaYBc_xR2hrlFhg/view

Included with the blank petition are detailed instructions that include a mailing address to send your collected signatures. If it is easier for you to have us pick up signed petitions from you in-person, or if you have any questions or ideas for helping, please email us at info@uftmembers.org. You can also email the David Kazansky campaign team directly at info@wetrustdavid.org.

The TRS Trustee campaign of David Kazansky and Ben Morgenroth is about accountability, transparency, and protecting our pensions. TRS is our money. UFT members need real representation that is transparent and accountable to all UFT members. We have until March 30 to collect 3,000 signatures.

Let’s get this done!

HAPPENING TODAY! On Tuesday, March 3, A Better Contract (ABC-UFT) is hosting a Mass Meeting with TRS Trustee candidate David Kazansky and Ben Morgenroth. At the meeting, we will learn about the role of TRS trustees, what they do, and why their work is so critically important to our retirement. TDA, pensions and Roth options will be explained clearly, along with insider strategies to maximize our benefits. We will close out the meeting with a live Q&A, where you can ask your questions directly to the experts.

Registration Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/PVRbj7nxTbqK0vxAKJmVSQ#/registration

⸻

Meet the Experts

David Kazansky – Former TRS teacher‑trustee and longtime NYC educator, David knows the inner workings of the pension system and fights to ensure TRS decisions are made that puts educators first. He has decades of experience advocating for educators’ benefits and is recognized for his deep knowledge of pension policies, TRS governance, and retirement planning strategies. David faithfully served as a teacher trustee on the NYC TRS board from 2015 to 2024. He is running as an independent candidate for re-election this year. CLICK HERE for David’s campaign website.

Ben Morgenroth – AP teacher and adjunct lecturer with over a decade in NYC classrooms, Ben combines classroom experience and financial expertise to help members understand pensions, TDA, and Roth options. Prior to becoming an educator, Ben worked in the private sector as a quantitative analyst evaluating investment risk and performance. Ben is running with David Kazansky in this year’s teacher trustee election.

⸻

Hosted by: A Better Contract (ABC-UFT)

Date & Time: Tuesday, March 3rd, 7:00 PM

Location: Zoom

Who Should Attend: In-service UFT members (retirees welcome to attend and observe, but this meeting will focus on in-service members and the TRS election)

Seats are limited. REGISTER NOW and take control of your retirement!

⸻

🔥 STAY CONNECTED WITH DAVID KAZANSKY

Follow David Kazansky for updates and analysis. He’s running for NYC TRS trustee in the upcoming spring election.

Follow at:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61586074705494

Instagram: http://instagram.com/davidkaznyc

🌐

http://wetrustdavid.org

Next Tuesday, March 3, A Better Contract (ABC-UFT) is hosting a Mass Meeting with TRS Trustee candidate David Kazansky and Ben Morgenroth. At the meeting, we will learn about the role of TRS trustees, what they do, and why their work is so critically important to our retirement. TDA, pensions and Roth options will be explained clearly, along with insider strategies to maximize our benefits. We will close out the meeting with a live Q&A, where you can ask your questions directly to the experts.

Registration Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/PVRbj7nxTbqK0vxAKJmVSQ#/registration

⸻

Meet the Experts

David Kazansky – Former TRS teacher‑trustee and longtime NYC educator, David knows the inner workings of the pension system and fights to ensure TRS decisions are made that puts educators first. He has decades of experience advocating for educators’ benefits and is recognized for his deep knowledge of pension policies, TRS governance, and retirement planning strategies. David faithfully served as a teacher trustee on the NYC TRS board from 2015 to 2024. He is running as an independent candidate for re-election this year. CLICK HERE for David’s campaign website.

Ben Morgenroth – AP teacher and adjunct lecturer with over a decade in NYC classrooms, Ben combines classroom experience and financial expertise to help members understand pensions, TDA, and Roth options. Prior to becoming an educator, Ben worked in the private sector as a quantitative analyst evaluating investment risk and performance. Ben is running with David Kazansky in this year’s teacher trustee election.

⸻

Hosted by: A Better Contract (ABC-UFT)

Date & Time: Tuesday, March 3rd, 7:00 PM

Location: Zoom

Who Should Attend: In-service UFT members (retirees welcome to attend and observe, but this meeting will focus on in-service members and the TRS election)

Seats are limited. REGISTER NOW and take control of your retirement!

⸻

🔥 STAY CONNECTED WITH DAVID KAZANSKY

Follow David Kazansky for updates and analysis. He’s running for NYC TRS trustee in the upcoming spring election.

Follow at:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61586074705494

Instagram: http://instagram.com/davidkaznyc

🌐 http://wetrustdavid.org

📢 JOIN TODAY’S LIVE CALL WITH TRS TRUSTEE CANDIDATE DAVID KAZANSKY

Financial Foundation$

Join David Kazansky for a financial wellness workshop designed to help you take a clear, honest look at your money and build a stronger financial future.

This session will cover:

• Goal Setting

• Budgeting

• Spending Habits

• Saving Strategies

• Debt Management

• Retirement Planning

Clear information. Practical explanations. No spin.

📅 Wednesday, February 25

🕒 5PM

🔗 Registration: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/YCQjUHyrT4W2qsgGCX_-hg#/registration

Please take some time Wednesday afternoon to join the meeting and learn some important information to help you understand where you stand financially, what matters most, and practical steps you can take right away for a brighter financial future. Please share the registration link with others!

🔥 STAY CONNECTED WITH DAVID KAZANSKY

Follow David Kazansky for updates and analysis. He’s running for NYC TRS trustee in the upcoming spring election.

Follow at:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61586074705494

Instagram: http://instagram.com/davidkaznyc

🌐 http://wetrustdavid.org

CLICK HERE to register for today’s meeting.

Several years ago a resolution was brought to the floor of the Delegate Assembly proposing the UFT lobby state legislators to amend the Taylor Law — specifically, removing the no strike pledge while preserving the parts of the law that protect our pensions. It was pointed out that there was precedent for Taylor being amended, specifically the Triborough Amendment.

Unity Caucus, which controls the Delegate Assembly along with every other instrument in the UFT apparatus, voted the resolution down. If you’re wondering why, ask yourself what’s easier for Mulgrew and the rest of the Unity-controlled UFT leadership: organizing a 200,000 member-strong strike? Or shrugging and saying “nothing we can do, Taylor Law makes striking illegal.” There’s your answer.

Here’s the harsh truth: if you’re not happy with the way the current UFT leadership represents you, you need to get off your ass and vote in the next union election, and get others to do so as well. If 170,000+ people can sign a Change.org petition calling for remote instruction in less than 24 hours, it’s not hard to believe more than just 29% of the members (approximately 58,000 people) can be bothered over the course of a month to take less than five minutes to mail in a ballot. It’s not hard to believe they can then summon the effort to speak with the colleagues they see every day and encourage them to vote too.

Otherwise, respectfully, folks should really stop complaining and just admit that they’re actually okay with the status quo. Admit they’re okay with a union that limits comments on social media posts because the leadership has nothing but contempt for the members (who pay their overinflated salaries) and what we have to say. Admit that they’re okay with endlessly screaming into the void of a Facebook group with the same legitimate complaints again and again and again instead of finally doing something about it.

Please follow ABC on social media. Please reach out to us and get involved if you would like to see an alternative to the current Unity-controlled UFT leadership that has dominated our union for the last 65+ years. The next union-wide election is in 2028, but we have plenty of initiatives we’re working on between now and then that you can help with, many from the comfort of your couch if you have a smartphone or other Internet-enabled device. Like a well-planned, inclusive lesson, there are entry points for all levels of activism in ABC.

If your response to that bare minimum ask is “I don’t have time for that,” ask yourself if you “have time” to dig your car out and schlep to work for 15% student attendance and zero meaningful instruction taking place every time we get hit with a foot or more of snow. Ask yourself if you “have time” for that second job you have to work because our union leaders can’t negotiate raises that even keep up with the cost of living, much less outpace it. Ask yourself if you “have time” when you continue to work a 155 minute longer school week (over 90 hours per year!) for a raise we got over twenty years ago.

Friends, at some point we need to recognize that we “don’t have time” because of Unity’s leadership, not in spite of it. Unity’s absolute control of the UFT and our working more for less aren’t unrelated data points — they have a direct causal relationship. And so we ask if you can make the relatively minimal investment over the next two years of helping ABC end Unity’s reign of errors for good and give yourself and the other 200,000 people represented by this union a decent shot at better pay, more respect for your time — in short, a better, healthier work-life balance.

We’ll close with one final point: pulling your dues will not help you or fix this crisis — in fact, it exacerbates it. We know from last year’s election that Unity maintains control of the UFT because they can reliably turn out 30,000 votes — about 15% of the overall membership. About 13% voted for the opposition. A whopping 71% or so remain totally disengaged. Fed up UFT members pulling their dues actually increases Unity’s share of the vote and makes dislodging them even more difficult. What we need right now is for people to lean in, not withdraw. Look at it this way — if just the 42,000 members of the big DOE Facebook group voted for ABC, Unity would lose in a nearly twenty point landslide. Now imagine if half of all UFT members — 100,000 people — bothered to vote. Unity would get blown out by forty points.

None of this is beyond the realm of possibility. All it requires is a rejection of apathy, a temporary investment of minimal effort, and a desire for a better life for us and our families. Seven decades of uninterrupted, absolute rule isn’t union democracy. It’s a dictatorship. It’s a union president making nearly half a million dollars per year off our dues while telling us to be thankful for anemic 3% raises. Ignore Unity’s fear mongering and obfuscation and join us in working for a better future we can all support.

Get clear, practical answers on your retirement benefits from experts who know the system inside and out. Stop guessing and start planning smarter for your future.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

⸻

Why Attend

• Understand TRS trustees: What they do and why it matters to you.

• TDA, pensions & Roth options explained clearly.

• Insider strategies to maximize your benefits.

• Live Q&A: Ask your questions directly to the experts.

⸻

Meet the Experts

David Kazansky – Former TRS teacher‑trustee and longtime NYC educator, David knows the inner workings of the pension system and fights to ensure TRS decisions are made that puts educators first. He has decades of experience advocating for educators’ benefits and is recognized for his deep knowledge of pension policies, TRS governance, and retirement planning strategies. David faithfully served as a teacher trustee on the NYC TRS board from 2015 to 2024. He is running as an independent candidate for re-election this year. CLICK HERE for David’s campaign website.

Ben Morgenroth – AP teacher and adjunct lecturer with over a decade in NYC classrooms, Ben combines classroom experience and financial expertise to help members understand pensions, TDA, and Roth options. Prior to becoming an educator, Ben worked in the private sector as a quantitative analyst evaluating investment risk and performance. Ben is running with David Kazansky in this year’s teacher trustee election.

⸻

Hosted by: A Better Contract (ABC-UFT)

Date & Time: March 3rd, 7:00 PM

Location: Zoom

Who Should Attend: In-service UFT members (retirees welcome to attend and observe, but this meeting will focus on in-service members and the TRS election)

Seats are limited. REGISTER NOW and take control of your retirement!