How Effective Organizing Works and Why the MTA Hasn’t Done It?

It’s no secret that labor unions in the United States have been on the decline for the last 50 years. The reasons are many and don’t necessarily apply to the Massachusetts Teachers Association, but it’s worth pointing out why the organizing strategy failed during the pandemic.

The emergence of the Educators for a Democratic Union is the most consequential occurrence within the MTA in years, not because it has the answer to our problems, but because it has, for the first time in memory, brought the function of the MTA squarely into question. The failure of organizing to unite the union and wield political power lies in their misunderstanding of effective organizing and the nature of the MTA.

The MTA is not a unified or hierarchical organization. It has little or no authority over its member locals and chapters. MTA Governance cannot make a decision and expect them to carry it out. Thus our political power, on the other hand, has always been variable. Locals were not created equal. Some are small. Some are poor. Some are led by people who are indifferent or opposed to MTA initiatives. The MTA has been part of some victories in the last ten years, specifically in the defeat of a ballot initiative to lift the cap on charter school. We worked hard on this issue, and our work was necessary, but it was far from sufficient. Without the support of school committees and school superintendents and taxpayers who have come to realize the bite charter school tuition takes out of their budgets, the initiative would have passed. Unlike the Chicago Teachers Union, we do not have the same employer or serve the same community.

The other reason organizing is failed is that the Educators for a Democratic Union (EDU) haven’t done it well. To successfully use direct action to unite members and effect change, you need to understand where power and decision-making lies. Something the EDU has apparently never done. National Education Association EdJustice, part of the NEA and to which the MTA belongs, has an explainer on power mapping:

Power mapping is simply a way to identify who has power in the community, and to figure out what will move those individuals or institutions to do whatever it is you want them to do.

There are a few questions they suggest asking:

Who are some key potential allies in your community — individuals and organizations who are likely to be on your side and who have the ability to influence others?

Who might oppose your plan, and who is in the middle who could be brought over to your side?

What are effective ways to communicate with your community?

The EDU has never considered these questions in the context of the MTA where even some chapters and locals may oppose the plan due to ideology or the communities they work in. Their push for a strike clearly suffered from neglecting the many locals the MTA serves. Reportedly, a third of MTA members believed teachers should be doing some form of in-person learning. That’s a problem for organizing.

More generally speaking, teachers unions are constrained by the fact that teachers serve children. The vast majority of the time our interests coincide with those of students, but not always. It’s also easy for demagoguery to use students as a wedge between us and the electorate. This became very clear when it became apparent that student mental health was suffering during remote education. (I know of multiple suicide attempts in my own district). Students complicate any action of teacher unions. They should be part of any power map before our President and Vice President speak or advocates for some sort of job action.