It's true Unity tries to scare people with the bogeyman of a strike. That shouldn't the way we go about discussing a strike. We shouldn't *lead* with the personal penalty. In addition, as you know, there are many new folks out there. We have to be mindful and informative when we discuss militant tactics.
"Taylor Law spies were monitoring and if you uttered the word you will get a two for one penalty. " I suppose this is intended to be humorous. However, the UFT leadership already misinforms and frightens the members enough. It may be a joke to you but you might be surprised how many members it would worry. Imo not helpful.
Fear of Taylor Law has been used by the UFT for 50 years to stoke fear of strike in the members and them is a way of disparaging it. So I don't believe my comment elicits fear - maybe a chuckle or two. Later in my post I say "some fascinating talk about what a NO vote might mean and what strike prep would mean -- no, not a strike but getting members ready and sending a message to the city that they should not take things for granted. A credible threat will get a better contract. This has been a key to the MORE platform and they have been mocked by Unity which tries to scare people by saying MORE wants a strike when we all know a strike run by Unity would be a disaster - It was eloquently explained by some MORE panelists that they are talking strike prep to lay the groundwork and try to sell the idea that if pushed too far, people may just be willing to take a 2 for 1 hit like we did in 1975." We knew about 2 for 1 in 75 and did it anyway - unfortunately the leadership as Shanker admitted later was opposed to striking but went along due to militant uprising from the members but gave up as soon as they could get away with it. Imagine a strike for a week - that's loss of pay for two weeks. Upsetting for sure but two weeks is not that much more frightening than no pay at all. Reality is that they make up the time lost and so they get back one week - and if the gains are significant Taylor Law penalties are a form of paying insurance for a better contract. The union opposes a strike because the penalties for the leadership are much worse than the members.
It's true Unity uses a caricature of a strike as a bogeyman to scare members. That doesn't mean we should *lead* with the personal penalties. Also, as you know, many people are new to this. We should be mindful and informative when discussing militant tactics
It's true Unity tries to scare people with the bogeyman of a strike. That shouldn't the way we go about discussing a strike. We shouldn't *lead* with the personal penalty. In addition, as you know, there are many new folks out there. We have to be mindful and informative when we discuss militant tactics.
"Taylor Law spies were monitoring and if you uttered the word you will get a two for one penalty. " I suppose this is intended to be humorous. However, the UFT leadership already misinforms and frightens the members enough. It may be a joke to you but you might be surprised how many members it would worry. Imo not helpful.
Fear of Taylor Law has been used by the UFT for 50 years to stoke fear of strike in the members and them is a way of disparaging it. So I don't believe my comment elicits fear - maybe a chuckle or two. Later in my post I say "some fascinating talk about what a NO vote might mean and what strike prep would mean -- no, not a strike but getting members ready and sending a message to the city that they should not take things for granted. A credible threat will get a better contract. This has been a key to the MORE platform and they have been mocked by Unity which tries to scare people by saying MORE wants a strike when we all know a strike run by Unity would be a disaster - It was eloquently explained by some MORE panelists that they are talking strike prep to lay the groundwork and try to sell the idea that if pushed too far, people may just be willing to take a 2 for 1 hit like we did in 1975." We knew about 2 for 1 in 75 and did it anyway - unfortunately the leadership as Shanker admitted later was opposed to striking but went along due to militant uprising from the members but gave up as soon as they could get away with it. Imagine a strike for a week - that's loss of pay for two weeks. Upsetting for sure but two weeks is not that much more frightening than no pay at all. Reality is that they make up the time lost and so they get back one week - and if the gains are significant Taylor Law penalties are a form of paying insurance for a better contract. The union opposes a strike because the penalties for the leadership are much worse than the members.
It's true Unity uses a caricature of a strike as a bogeyman to scare members. That doesn't mean we should *lead* with the personal penalties. Also, as you know, many people are new to this. We should be mindful and informative when discussing militant tactics