Re “UPCC Is Anti-Union, Should Be Stopped, LAUSD Teacher Letter Claims”
A knotty new twist has emerged this morning in the veiled drama encircling the recent controversial letter generated by United Teachers Los Angeles, signed by President Warren Fletcher, and sent to “perhaps more than a hundred” Culver City voters regarding the Nov. 5 School Board election.
Although David Mielke, president of the Teachers Union, told the newspaper two days ago that his union and the Assn. of Classified Employees jointly asked UTLA to write the endorsement letter that strongly disparaged a parents union, United Parents of Culver City, someone else initially was responsible.
An unidentified parent.
While the barely disguised 300-word letter reprinted here on Monday was billed as an endorsement of Teachers Union-anointed candidates for the Nov. 5 election, it is being seen primarily as a screed against the UPCC. The Teachers Union candidates hardly needed the blessing of UTLA.
Regarding the man who initially ignited the UTLA letter concept, here is what happened.
“To be honest with you,” said Debbie Hamme, president of ACE, “we didn’t reach out to UTLA first. A parent from the community did.”
Why?
Said Ms. Hamme, who felt maltreated by the UPCC last year during the flap over adjuncts: “I believe the parent saw anti-union sentiment on the part of the parents group (UPCC). He or she was concerned about it.
“It was suggested to us (the two Culver City unions) by the parent that we speak to UTLA about the parent’s concerns.
“We did that.
“UTLA investigated the situation by looking at stories in Culver City newspapers. They looked at the (El Marino Language Immersion School) adjunct issue (whether heretofore unnoticed employees should be unionized). UTLA decided they agreed with this parent’s assessment of anti-union sentiment in the community, and that it would be a good idea to send a letter out to their members.”
Ms. Hamme estimated that “more than a hundred” UTLA members reside and vote in Culver City.
In defense of the LAUSD union, she said that “they do have a right to communicate with their members. They do have the right to inform their members about important issues going on in the community in which they live. I think that is what they did.”
Ms. Hamme was asked: Surely the UTLA authors of the accusatory letter realized this would spark a storm when its existence became known?
“There always is a possibility that something,” she said, “even if it is somewhat benign, will stir up a firestorm.”
Would she label the letter benign?
“The letter was truthful,” Ms. Hamme replied. “It is all a matter of perspective. I am sure UPCC didn’t think it was truthful. And they voiced that opinion.”
Ms. Hamme reiterated that the letter was crafted by UTLA officials, not by anyone in Culver City.
How efficient is the mail?
“I have not received the letter,” she said. “I saw it in thefrontpageonline.com”
What would Ms. Hamme say to UPCC members who charge that the three specific allegations against them are blanket untruths?
“I would say, perhaps that is how they see it from their perspective. Certainly that is not the way I see it. I was on the receiving end of a lot of animus during the El Marino adjunct issue. A lot of it was unfairly personal, and a lot of it was stridently anti-union.
UPCC leaders have countered that charge by pointing out they are longtime members of unions.
“Union membership in itself,” said Ms. Hamme, “does not necessarily make you not anti-union. For members of the community who went to School Board meetings during the adjunct issue and talked about their union membership, but then thought the ladies who were adjuncts at El Marino didn’t deserve to have a living wage, or sick days, or some paid vacation days, that proves their union membership wasn’t necessarily what unionism meant to them.”
As for another charge in the UTLA letter, “I don’t know that I would characterize UTLA as anti-teacher,” Ms. Hamme said. “I don’t think the Teachers Union was the focus of their animus. I do think there is some anti-union sentiment in the UPCC because they did not want to really learn more about what my union’s proposal was during that time. Some assumptions were made (by UPCC) without knowing the facts.
“There was mismanagement by (retired Supt.) Ms. (Patti) Jaffe during that time. Perhaps information was given to them that did not accurately reflect what the union’s proposal was. There was a lot of misunderstanding. From that misunderstanding grew a movement among the parents to discredit my union.”
(To be continued)
