Ed at the AFT and Leo Casey, at UFT's EdWize, seem to be somewhat defensive about having the UFT's consideration of "No Contract, No Work" examined, even if somewhat belatedly.

AFT Ed would like you to think that this kind of activism is like a coffee klatsch, where everyone is all grins and giggles and no one gets hurt. But the power that comes from "No Contract, No Work" is precisely that it makes life hell for the residents of the city, specifically parents and students. If the action isn't hurting the recipients of your public service, why even do it? If "No Contract, No Work" doesn't impact kids and families negatively in the short term, isn't it just lip service? If this isn't about achieving significant leverage for the union in its negotiations, isn't it a waste of everyone's time?

(Please read Ed's goofy and telling example of the patient who had the wrong hip operated on over in Jersey. He suggests, based on his scenario, that it is the fault of management, not of striking nurses who left their posts prior to the operation. What a bizarre way to look at it. If you are the patient, it doesn't matter whose fault it is-- you're still completely screwed!!!! )

The UFT in New York believes it has been shafted from day one by the Bloomberg administration. If it wants to take a hard line during negotiations with the city, it should do so without being spooked by a simple blog item. But why take a hard line while pretending you are tip-toeing? Just do it. It seems, though, that people like Ed want the union to have power and be loved at the same time. That's trickier, and it is indirectly the point of my original post (which surely wasn't as clear as it should have been, based on some emails I got from UFT members. I was shooting for a "meanness relativism" post, but I obviously didn't pull it off.)

The original question I posed was to Legislators who thought that running a couple of political ads against their charter-hating colleagues was shockingly "mean." Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a guy who understands how to play hardball, acted as if he had seen a ghost when the ads ran. Charter-friendly legislators - one from Buffalo quickly comes to mind - acted like the world was caving in because of the basic, run-of-the-mill political ads aimed at big people. It was fascinating.

Charter school people seem to want the same things that AFT Ed seems to want: they want power, but they also want to be loved. Sometimes, one has to give. (And despite Ed's post on the AFT blog, he and everyone else in the upper ranks of the AFT understand this full well. Casey notes in his post: "we are fully prepared to engage in non-violent civil disobedience and assume the penalties for doing so, when the cause of justice - and education - requires it." And if you believe David Selden's account in The Teacher Rebellon, the UFT never would have achieved the first significant collective bargaining agreement in America without the powerful "No Contract, No Work" threat.)

The unions get it. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people in the charter school world who don't.