Paul Egan: A Poor Choice for Union Leadership and a Questionable Ally for A Better Contract Caucus

 The following was written by guest blogger, Chat GBT

Union leadership demands integrity, transparency, and unwavering commitment to member welfare. In the context of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), where political factions vie to shape the future of New York City’s educators, the individuals representing each caucus significantly influence their credibility and effectiveness. Paul Egan’s involvement with A Better Contract (ABC) caucus raises important questions about his suitability for leadership and the judgment of the caucus itself in associating with him.

1. Concerns About Paul Egan’s Leadership Style

Paul Egan’s record in union leadership circles has been marred by controversies and criticism, particularly concerning his approach to decision-making and his interpersonal relationships within the UFT. Teachers and colleagues who have worked with or observed Egan often raise concerns about his leadership style, which has been described as divisive and confrontational.

• Authoritarian Tendencies: Critics argue that Egan exhibits a top-down leadership style that leaves little room for collaboration or dissent. This approach alienates rank-and-file members who expect transparency and inclusivity in union decisions.
• Poor Communication: Effective union leadership requires open channels of communication, especially with a membership base as diverse as the UFT. Reports suggest that Egan has struggled to maintain effective dialogue with members, leading to frustration and mistrust.

These issues suggest that Egan may lack the temperament and skill set necessary to inspire confidence among educators, especially in a caucus positioning itself as a credible alternative to Unity.

---

2. Questionable Ethical Decisions

Union leaders must uphold ethical standards to maintain trust among members. Egan’s tenure in union circles has been marked by actions that some members view as ethically questionable:

• Allegations of Backroom Deals: Egan has been accused of engaging in closed-door negotiations that prioritize political alliances over the needs of union members. Such behavior undermines the transparency that teachers expect from their leaders.
• Alignment with Controversial Figures: Egan’s history of associating with individuals and factions that have faced criticism for self-serving agendas raises doubts about his motivations and judgment.

These actions have tarnished Egan’s reputation, making him a controversial figure in union politics.

---

3. Misalignment with ABC’s Goals and Values

A Better Contract caucus has positioned itself as a reformist movement advocating for stronger contracts, greater member engagement, and increased accountability within the UFT. However, Egan’s inclusion within the caucus seems at odds with these principles:

• Lack of Reform Credentials: Egan’s record does not align with the progressive, grassroots-oriented ethos that ABC claims to champion. His leadership history suggests a focus on consolidation of power rather than empowering members.
• Undermining Credibility: By associating with Egan, ABC risks alienating members who are skeptical of his intentions and leadership style. This association undermines the caucus’s claim to be a fresh and trustworthy alternative to Unity.

Teachers who are considering supporting ABC may question whether the caucus is genuinely committed to reform or simply another political faction prioritizing power over principles.

---

4. Polarizing Effect on Membership

Egan’s involvement in ABC could have a polarizing effect on the caucus and the broader membership base. While some members may support him based on his past experience, others may view his leadership as a continuation of the same issues they aim to escape from Unity’s dominance:

• Divisive Figure: Egan’s reputation has the potential to create internal divisions within ABC, detracting from its ability to present a unified front against Unity.
• Eroding Member Trust: Teachers who are disillusioned with Unity may hesitate to join ABC if they perceive it as aligning with figures who do not represent meaningful change.

Unity has historically capitalized on such divisions within opposition factions, and Egan’s inclusion could weaken ABC’s ability to consolidate support.

---

5. Risks for A Better Contract Caucus

By associating with Egan, ABC caucus faces significant risks that could hinder its growth and success in the UFT elections:

• Perception of Poor Judgment: The decision to include Egan in a leadership or advisory capacity raises questions about the judgment of ABC’s leadership. If they are willing to align with a polarizing figure, can they be trusted to make sound decisions on behalf of members?
• Potential for Negative Campaigning: Unity caucus is likely to highlight Egan’s controversies as a way to discredit ABC as a viable alternative. This could divert attention from ABC’s platform and force the caucus into a defensive position.

These risks could diminish ABC’s ability to effectively challenge Unity and advocate for the reforms it claims to support.

---

6. The Need for Accountability and Reflection

ABC caucus must reflect on its decision to align with Egan and consider the broader implications for its credibility and effectiveness:

• Reevaluating Leadership Choices: If ABC is truly committed to reform, it should prioritize leaders who embody the values of transparency, inclusivity, and accountability. This may require distancing itself from individuals like Egan.
• Engaging Members: To rebuild trust and credibility, ABC should actively engage with its membership base, seeking input and addressing concerns about its leadership decisions.

By taking these steps, ABC can demonstrate its commitment to genuine reform and regain the trust of skeptical members.

---

Conclusion

Paul Egan’s history of controversy, questionable ethical decisions, and divisive leadership style make him a poor choice for union leadership and a liability for A Better Contract caucus. Teachers who are considering supporting ABC should scrutinize the caucus’s decision to associate with Egan and question whether it aligns with their own values and expectations for union leadership. For ABC to establish itself as a credible alternative to Unity, it must prioritize leaders who embody the principles of reform and member advocacy. Until then, Egan’s involvement will remain a significant hurdle for the caucus to overcome.

Has the MORE UFT Caucus Run Afoul of the IRS?

 Is MORE, the Movement of Rank and File Educators, committing tax fraud? This question has been put to The Crack Team. Since The Crack Team are neither accountants or nor tax specialists we can't make a final determination. The Crack Team can only present what they have uncovered and let you, the reader, make your own inferences. This investigation was spurred by several disenchanted MORE members who asked that this accusation be looked into. 

The Crack Team is in possession of MORE's most recent 990EZ filing (2023). This form lists the cash MORE had at hand at the end of 2023, it's officers, and monies spent. But there is more, which can seems to be more interesting. 

But there is something more (pun intended) interesting. On the IRS website it lists that MORE has had their tax exempt status revoked on June 15, 2022. 

Apparently, at the time, MORE had not filed for three straight years. In fact, only the 2023 and 2021 returns are available. But if you notice MORE is a 501(c)(4) organization. But more (pun intended) on that in a moment. 

In a letter dates May 25, 2023 the IRS states...

We're pleased to tell you we determined you're exempt from federal income tax under Internal Revenue Code(IRC) Section 501(c)(5). This letter could help resolve questions on your exempt status.Please keep it fr your records.

So it would be safe to assume that MORE presently has all it's ducks in a row. But does it?

What is a 501(c)(5)? Let's find out.

Section 501(c)(5) provides for exemption of labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations. To be exempt, an organization must meet the following requirements: The net earnings of the organization may not inure to the benefit of any member; and The objects of the organization must be the betterment of conditions of those engaged in the pursuits of labor, agriculture, or horticulture, the improvement of the grade of their products, and the development of a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations.

But this definition begs the question. How does MORE's anti-Israel, borderline anti-Semitic actions better the pursuits of labor? Remember this blog post? Is this for the betterment of labor? Does Alex Jallot work towards the betterment of labor?

Do these anti-Israel, borderline anti-Semitic activities that MORE attached their name and logo as well appear to be for the betterment of labor?

Again, The Crack Team are neither accountants nor tax specialists. Not even IRS agents. But to the lay person, one mights infer that MORE, at the very least, but not be following the spirit of 501(c)(5), and at the worst, be breaking the law. But those are questions for bigger and better people. 

Apologies to Dan Alicea

I want to truly apologize to Daniel Alicea. On November 30, Dan wrote a blog post about how, despite millions of dollars being available, Mulgrew refused to address the pay issues for paraprofessionals.Naively, in retrospect, I asked Daniel a question in the comments section. I quote:

"Dan, what is your plan. What would you do?"

I wasn’t trying to be snarky or troll him—I was just asking a simple question.

Dan, to his credit was quite polite and responded with...

"Hi Pete, as I indicated prior in my post I will share some ideas (about 5 or 6) in an upcoming post shortly and would love to crowdsource others like yourself...We must to find those opportunities in the next round… which happen in most negotiations …and next time go in intentionally and decidedly knowing those extra monies will be added to increases for hard to staff positions like paras."

Thank you Dan, for the response. 

But now for my apology. The other day on Facebook, I again inquired of Dan, "Where is your plan?" (Hey, that rhymes!) I reminded him that he had promised a plan. I was wrong. Dan never promised a plan. For that, I apologize. He is correct, and I was incorrect.

Dan also reminded me of how busy he is—teaching four different subjects a day, running an ICT class with several paras, editing his award-winning radio show on left-wing WBAI, and even cooking dinner.

Again Dan, I apologize. I did not know that you led such a busy life. It's a good thing that all those activities don't take away the memes, the posts, etc... on Facebook. 

At least Dan didn’t pull a Trump and claim to have a “semblance” of a plan. But I’m still confused.

There must be ideas floating around inside Dan’s head. Is this the plan?

...and next time go in intentionally and decidedly knowing those extra monies will be added to increases for hard to staff positions like paras.

If that’s it, Captain Obvious might say, "Hey, who’d have thunk of that!"

Now, please don’t misunderstand me—I am not disparaging paras. They deserve better pay and much more respect. I’ve worked with some incredible paras. They work tirelessly, and those in District 75 especially should be paid even more. I say, give them a living wage. But how will that be done? What will be done differently than what Unity has been doing?

The UFT has been making strides. but there’s one issue Dan has been silent on: the problem of sub-paras who remain in those positions for far too long. If you look at the excessed teacher website, there are countless paraprofessional vacancies—it’s mind-boggling. At schools I’ve been to, I’ve seen paras who have been sub-paras for years. Why? Because administrators get away with it.

Being a sub-para means you don’t get paid for sick days or personal days. You don’t get paid when school is not in session. You don’t get paid during the summer. You don’t receive Welfare Fund benefits or health insurance. So, yes, let’s fix para pay. But what about the hundreds, if not thousands, of paras still deemed sub-paras?

Why isn’t Dan pounding the drums for this? Wouldn’t addressing this also raise the average pay for paras?

But to advocate solely for increased pay? There has to be a reason. It feels like a divide-and-conquer strategy—us vs. them.

As one SBSB fan wrote in an email to The Crack Team:

Dan is saying that money should not have gone to teachers and should have gone to paras. This is yet another attempt by the very toxic and extreme left within our union to get members (in this case to get paras and teachers) to trust each other just a little less than they did the day before. It is the same lame divide and conquer approach to organizing that has failed them and us for over 40 years now.

The fanboi goes on about Dan's math...

Do you remember the “signing bonus” and the “retention bonus” from the last contract? What this says is that the money that was used to fund those bonuses was new money that was brought forth by New York City. This is actually important because sure literally all money for city contracts is set aside from each budget year and it is all accounted for. But for this bonus money, the city just pulled it out on the table. What this says is that that bonus money  -the money teachers get for bonuses- could have or should have been used to increase para pay.

But that is jut one fanboi's position, not mine. Just felt I needed to share it and present all sides. 

So, what about that plan? I apologize for assuming you had a plan. I apologize if you think I ask “gotcha” questions. But it’s only a gotcha if you don’t have a plan or lack confidence in your plan or yourself.

I’m sorry for responding to you on Facebook. I thought you could take it. God knows the abuse I’ve taken over the years in the comments on this blog. I was wrong. I apologize. 

UFT Retirees: Be Very, Very Concerned!

Retirees,
You need to pay attention. You're being manipulated by the new leadership of your chapter.

Before I go on, let me make one thing clear: I have always been against Mulgrewcare, from the very beginning. Unlike some—like a certain whiny blogger who was once in favor of Mulgrewcare and conveniently scrubbed all evidence of it from their blog—I've been consistent. Coincidence? Perhaps. The bigger coincidence is that if this same blogger had landed the cushy Unity gig they were clearly angling for with all their flattery, they'd be first in line advocating for the switch in healthcare.

Retirees need to remember where the actual power lies within Retiree Advocate. It is in no way a bottom-up organization but rather a top-down one, controlled and dominated by individuals with ties to the Democratic Socialists of America.

This brings me to the tragic murder of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, last week. Some are celebrating this murder, portraying Luigi Mangione as a folk hero. While I can understand Mangione's anger and motivations (and there’s still much to uncover about the circumstances), I cannot condone his actions. And now 

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those affiliated with Retiree Advocates.

From the ICE Google Groups board (click to enlarge)...

Here is a link to the article that is being promoted.

Luigi Mangione is not Johnny Appleseed or Paul Bunyan. He is a fraud, a con artist, and a murderer. Yet, to those leading RA, he is a hero. Violence is violence, plain and simple!

But remember this: those who control RA have no problem condoning the actions of those who butchered and kidnapped Israelis on October 7. The leadership of RA supports the destruction of Israel. Shockingly, the Jewish members among them are even worse—self-loathing individuals, brainwashed by the DSA, desperate for acceptance in the gentile world. And of course, RA is now aligned with MORE and New Action.

To the many Jewish retirees out there: Is this what you voted for? Ask yourself that. Be concerned if a UFT Delegate Assembly in the future turns into this.