To Run or Not to Run?

Tensions and alternatives for caucuses running in union elections

In her most recent post about protecting our greenhouses, Erin ends her contribution stating:

tensions between social justice, union democracy, and mobilization of union members across different political sensibilities are common in most, if not all, education unions. Ignoring or avoiding these tensions does not unify or strengthen the movement, it kicks us all back out into the harsh winter wind.

Social justice caucuses can be greenhouses as Erin explains in her section about the Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators (CORE) who as the social justice caucus in leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union have “expanded protections for academic freedom, immigrant students, and LGBTQ+ students and staff alongside many other improvements to working/learning conditions.” Nonetheless, social justice caucuses face many tensions. For example, people join caucuses for different reasons. Like most social movements, caucuses must decide if they want to include only a smaller group of like-minded activists or grow the caucus to include a wider range of activists who may have more divergent views making it more difficult to find consensus. Caucuses face tensions during their formation; when they are organizing; if/when they decide to run for union leadership; and when they win or lose. This piece explores some of these tensions, especially when a caucus decides to run for union leadership. It breaks down why/when a social justice caucus should or should not run in union elections.

Caucuses are small groups of like-minded people within a union who organize to further a special interest or cause. Many are independent of union leadership. A social justice caucus forms to ensure a union is democratic, transparent, and militant in its fight for member benefits and social justice causes affecting its members. Its goal is to build union power by organizing members to fight for themselves; members are the union.

Unions remain necessary under capitalism as an intermediary between labor and capital. As the mediator, union leadership must negotiate with bosses and politicians, and the union often gets caught up in bureaucratic union administration. This dynamic tends to force union leadership to be more conservative even if it is a progressive group of people and to perpetuate bureaucratic structures members are dissatisfied with. This tension tends to also happen when a caucus has members run for the Executive Board of the union, as Max explains in his blog Fire with Fire. When a caucus wins, it becomes part of the union apparatus which is integrated into a capitalist, white supremacist society. This can lead to the alienation of community organizations and Black and Brown communities who teachers serve and organize with. Radical change within a union means drastically changing the way a union is run; an almost impossible feat given today’s political and economic climate.

There are many lessons to learn from social justice caucuses across the country who have attempted to win union leadership; plenty have been successful. There are also a lot of tensions in electoral politics and in winning union leadership, some described in the paragraph above. When my social justice caucus, DC-CORE, was considering running for leadership of the Washington Teachers Union, I was unable to find easily accessible resources considering whether or not a caucus should run for union office. Below are some reflections for why/when a social justice caucus should or should not run in union elections.

Why/When should a social justice caucus run for union office?

• The union establishment is out of touch with members who are suffering; lots of anger and disappointment in leadership from members

• The union is not democratic; members are not decision-makers

• Too many concessions in contract negotiations from union leadership

• Members want a more militant union that bargains for the common good

• Elections activate members; active members make a union stronger

• A caucus can educate members during electoral campaigns

• To grow the caucus; caucuses gain access to greater union resources including membership contact information during elections

Why/When should a social justice caucus not run for union office?

• A caucus risks losing its ability to function if all of its active members become union leaders

• A caucus can become divided due to the political pressures/decisions of running for office; elections often lead to binary thinking

• A caucus can become hated by union members in general due to its opposition to leadership in its organizing but especially in an electoral campaign

• Union elections often have low turnout and running won’t necessarily mobilize a large number of members; elections also attract union members to the caucus who are only interested in the elections and not in the social justice organizing and mobilizing the caucus is committed to year round

• Elections can lead to burn out by active members who become exhausted from caucus organizing and the pressures of electoral campaigns

• A caucus who wins can become “old guard,” content with union victories, rather than committed to the radical organizing it ran on; it can perpetuate the structures that caused dissatisfaction and led the caucus to run (see introduction to this piece)

• A caucus can organize members and force the union to fight for workers rights while not in leadership (see below)

While I brainstormed the section above as a binary, to run or not to run, a caucus deciding to participate in union elections is not an either/or but a both/and. There are alternatives which social justice caucuses should consider:

First, a caucus does not have to create a slate using the name of the caucus but can run under a different name, which is a tradition for Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) in both national and local union elections. This can create distance between the social justice organizing that the caucus is doing and the electoral process. It also allows caucus members to align with and/or create a slate with union members who are not a part of the caucus.

Second, a social justice caucus might choose to run for office, but it should consider keeping some active caucus members out of the electoral process so that the caucus can continue to function if the electoral slate wins. When all of the caucus’ best organizers win union leadership, the caucus can no longer keep the leadership accountable to its progressive values and social justice causes. The caucus is an important space to brainstorm, debate, and organize around issues that union leadership may not be able to discuss publicly, such as walkouts and strikes.

Third, a social justice caucus can successfully win benefits for members and social justice causes for school communities without being in leadership of the teachers union. If a caucus mobilizes enough union members around an important cause, union leadership often is forced to follow their lead. In addition, a union is only as strong as its members. During the Red State Walkouts, members organized themselves without support of the teacher unions. They formed caucuses after the walkouts, but it helps to have the structure of the caucus already in place to help organize and mobilize union members.

Fourth, a caucus might consider running a smaller group of people to test the electoral waters. In my previous contribution to the substack, Laura Fuchs, now president of the Washington Teachers Union, shared how she ran as an independent before building a slate to run for union leadership. Her slate was also independent of our social justice caucus, DC-CORE.

It is particularly important to nurture the social justice caucus as a greenhouse in this chaotic, violent, and divisive environment in which teachers are attempting to protect both their teaching conditions and student learning conditions. This means thinking of alternatives to the binary- to run or not to run- and to having deep conversations as a caucus before deciding to run for union office.

Thank you to Jia Lee for being my thought partner in exploring these tensions and alternatives