Talk:American Federation of Teachers

Untitled

• The discussion of the Federacian de Maestros (FMPR) was one-sided (it did not cover AFT's charges or views, the views of the U.S. district court, the views of previous FMPR presidents who supported AFT, etc.) and inaccurate (whether most members knew of the AFT affiliation is irrelevant, as most union members' connection are to the local union, as it should be; the actual delinking of AFT and FMPR occurred after AFT pulled FMPR's charter, not because the decertification vote was validated). Additionally, most unions suffer decertifications. They are not usually noteworthy unless otherwise discussed, which the section on FMPR did not do. Tim1965 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Many of the links--such as the Mike Antonnucci link, the Information Please link (which was a circular link, as InfoPlease merely uses Wikipedia as its source), etc.--were not useful, unbalanced and/or inaccurate. And external link should not provide more information; that information should be in the article itself. An external link should link to the person or organization discussed, or to a site which discusses the topic in far more depth or technical detail that is appropriate for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. These links did not, IMHO. Tim1965 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Campaign for Children's Health/Shared governance statement

Is it necessary to add a whole section on the Campaign for Children's Health? AFT participates in many such campaigns. Why does this one get notice? And why should any of them be mentioned? If AFT's involvement is somehow notable (rather than being "just another campaign", or because the campaign has achieved a major accomplishment -- akin to winning collective bargaining or was a union-wide mobilization like "Lessons for Life"), then shouldn't that be noted? Otherwise, I would remove this section. This is an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for everything AFT does.

Is the notice about the shared governance statement also necessary? AFT, its executive council, and its PPCs issue policy statements, resolutions, reports, etc., all the time. If all of them were to be included, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia article but rather the AFT Web site. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to create a subsection describing each AFT PPC or division, and putting a link to the higher ed article there? If the governance statement is somehow path-breaking, has achieved something notable, or is highly controversial (akin to AFT's support for gay rights several years ago, when NEA had rescinded its statement after being criticized by Concerned Women for America), maybe it should go it. But it should be linked to the "story" of the article rather than just hanging out there, in the middle. Tim1965 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement on shared governance is particularly relevant to labor, and relevant informative content on the organization. The Campaign for Children's health is unobtrusive, I read it, found it interesting and followed the link. --Kenneth M Burke 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of things the AFT puts out are relevant to labor, relevant to the organizaton, and important to higher education. But that's beside the point. Why this one statement? Why not all the AFT's resolutions and policy statements on higher ed through the years? Why not all the work they've done for Campus Equity Week? Why this one statement, not others? Ditto for the CCC bit. Why not AFT's school nurse diabetes campaign, "Every Child Needs A School Nurse" legislative effort, or its Lessons For Life program from the 1990s (which was far bigger than any of these things)? Unobtrusive or not, interesting or not, neither belong. - Tim1965 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it is of their first statements on the subject (but certainly it would be interesting to delve into the history of it with the AFT). It is an important topic and one that a number of organizations are concerned with both domestic and abroad. The article itself is leans so much toward a labor emphasis, I think it balances the article and emphasizes an aspect of higher educational organization important to labor unionizing in universities. Maybe more about policy statements in general could also be added to the article. I think it is unobtrusive and relevant information. Does it bother you that much?--Kenneth M Burke 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue this one statement isn't important. AFT Higher Ed's efforts on tenure, adjunct faculty, pay, and budgeting for higher ed are, I'd argue, more important than this lone policy statement and have a longer history of support (including staff, resources, budget, local involvement, etc.).

I would also point out that AFT has provided no budget, no staff, and no resources to the CCC campaign. It's a sign-on campaign, and AFT signed on. (CCC will be lucky if AFT covers the campaign in "Healthwire", "American Teacher" or "PSRP Reporter".)

AFT has done so much else that's important -- it's NCLB effort, it's New Orleans reconstruction project...heck, their Web site today features their new (unbranded) report on higher ed "faculty bias" studies. That's the organization's focus, I'd argue.

Perhaps the higher ed statement is important for other reasons (such as to higher ed policy makers). If so, then perhaps a separate article should be written on governance in higher education, and the details provided there (in context, with other policy positions from other unions and organizations).

I worry that WP articles on unions will become mere advertisements for every little tiny thing the union does—whether it's important or not. Businesses, unions, authors, filmmakers: They all (and others) have tended to bloat up WP articles with self-promoting "stuff." I fail to see any evidence that either the higher ed statement or the CCC campaign are important to AFT, that AFT has taken action on them, or that anyone else outside the organization (or this talk page) thinks this is important. So yeah, it bothers me that much. - Tim1965 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and maybe many of those important details can be worked into the article itself (all the issues discussed in relation to higher education fall under the umbrella of governance). Beyond this, I simply feel that providing the information and creating connections between articles is important. It provides a convenient and useful collaborative bridge for learning. I have shortened it and hope that it can be worked into the article in some way, but am not so stubborn that I cannot see another point of view if your really think it should be deleted. Thanks for the dialogue. --Kenneth M Burke 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Early History and Creation

To have a section on the early history of the AFT and then speak of its creation later on in the article is redundant and inefficient to the economy of the article. The article should concern itself with the reorganization of these sections.--Kenneth M Burke 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific? I don't see this. The article does talk about the founding of the AFT. Then there's a subsection on the founding of its largest local, the UFT—an act fundamentally important to the growth of the union, the stabilization of its finances, the vaulting of Al Shanker to the presidency, the rise of militancy within the union, etc. (The UFT article itself should be much bigger and detailed, I agree. And there's no Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike, no Newark strike, etc.) Then the article shifts back to the growth of the union beyond the UFT founding. Of course, I'm not the "keeper of the article," either. I just worked there for 10 years and know a lot about it, so I contributed heavily. - Tim1965 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, the relationship between the UFT and AFT might be confusing to readers. By no means do I mean to intrude into your work in any way. I can offer suggestions if you like. It seems to me that the introduction to the article is good, and the early history is good, but I think most of the growth could be improved upon by clarifying the UFT and subsequent history. Many of the details seem to be random facts. Perhaps the article could be reworked by reorganizing the major ideas and working some of the details into a timeline. I believe this could be done in four steps.

1. Briefly introducing some of the history of the UFT into the early history.
2. Deleting the section on political and civil rights activities to say something more concrete about their activities with the creation of the UFT (maybe opening up the opportunity to discuss important policies).
3. Provide a coherent transition into the strike and expansion from the creation of the UFT.
4. Taking all the random dates in the history and making a comprehensive timeline to leave a coherent article.

I would be more than happy to work with you on the article. I am an agreeable individual and easy to get along with. I'll look around Wikipedia for some creative timelines.--Kenneth M Burke 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

the AFT has long been one of the more active unions in foreign policy in the united states; it'd be worth someone with some background in that topic adding this to the page. Unsigned comment by User:72.65.223.192

( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Assessmnent comments

I did a quick assessmnent in the comments section as per MrMacMan's request. G'luck. Haus42 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

This section had so many problems that I removed most of it:

Critics of the AFT exist on both the right and left of the political spectrum. On the left, Paul Buhle has strong criticized AFT President Albert Shanker for supporting anti-communism and abandoning socialism, among other things. Also, the documentary Waiting for Superman has accused the AFT of protecting incompetant, lazy and teachers that perform cruel and unusual acts on there teachers. San Diego State University education professor and Marxist theorist Rich Gibson has criticized the AFT for embracing liberalism, abandoning the working class, and trying to force a merger with the NEA from the top down. [Waiting for Superman]

Paul Buhle's New Politics summary belongs in an article about Shanker: Presumably Buhle's article could provide criticism of the AFT rather than just Shanker. The other removed stuff is not even written in English or formatted properly (besides the questions about fringe, reliable, undue, etc.).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like POV editing removing the criticism of the AFT based on poor formatting. Let's keep it and fix the formatting. Buhle is a leading expert and is certainly not fringe. If you start expelling the left from the AFT you have little history left. Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jensen,

Stop attacking my good faith and stop making unsubstantiated allegations about my political motivations.

Read what I said about Buhle: Buhle's cited criticism is about Shanker, not about the AFT, and so it belongs in the article about Shanker. I have earlier read Buhle's article (along with other writings) and I stated that an editor could probably find criticism of the AFT there. You have no (public) excuse for stating that I want to censor the left or censor Buhle.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem of NPOV and RS. Buhle is a serious Marxist intellectual who has worked at universities. The other source was some electronic journal of Marxism, Cultural Logic; having both (particularly the junk source) and only a sentence about a liberal/libertarian/progressive criticism of the AFT (Waiting for Superman) makes this a POV problem.

Apparently, the AFT and unions have been criticized in Ohio and Wisconsin in the USA this last year, according to even Swedish newspapers: Where are the criticisms associated with the Wall Street Journal or Cato, and where is the serious discussion of Waiting for Superman? Surely Dissent or Debbie Meier or the New Republic, or the Nation have discussed something. Yet you want 2 Marxist critics of the AFT's failure to embrace Marxian socialism?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Buhle of course attacked Shanker's role in the AFT. The section now has a nice balance of criticism from the left and the right, with footnotes. Rjensen (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I described New Politics's politics, briefly (technically, left Shachtmanism) and asked for a page reference. It seems the Patterson State U. archive has disappeared, and I couldn't find Buhle's piece today: I reworded the criticism to be about Shanker, and would like a page citation or preferably a quotation to justify a change to Buhle criticizing the AFT. (Buhle's article doesn't describe his politics, btw.) Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not keep a copy (it's now offline; i did find the page #s), but I recall the emphasis was the Vietnam war issue. Marjorie Murphy's book explains the debate from the 1960s. Rjensen (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Buhle article is at Buhle on AFT Rjensen (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, it is best to avoid describing Buhle's politics. New Politics's orientation is described as "Third Camp" on its web site, and so I describe it as "Marxist". It may be POV to describe "Waiting for Superman" as "right" in the contemporary USA; it might be centrist or progressive, according to some, for better or worse. It is best to avoid such POV labels. The WSJ, Cato, and Heritage probably represent the right.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was easier than I had feared: Thanks, RJensen for the constructive criticism of my criticism of the criticism section, and other valuable additions.

I trust that other editors can add other criticisms and defenses, particularly from the liberal-labor (lib-lab) center-left to the center right and also the conservatives/libertarians previously named.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tax the Rich controversy.

Hi.

I was thinking we should note in the controversy section of the article their creation and distribution of the animated video "Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale", specifically the scene where one of the rich people was shown urinating on a group of people. It caused a large degree of controversy, with Breitbart, Fox News, and NewsBusters reporting on it and, in the case of FOX, even questioning Ed Asner on it. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind, made a mistake. I mixed this up with the California Federation of Teachers. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Donna Shalala

Donna Shalala did indeed serve as Secretary HHS from 1993 to 2001, but she has never served as a US Senator from any state, certainly not Illinois. Jessemckay (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

right--I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

adding citations

I have found some articles and journals that would make this page more credible and verify the already proposed information. This is just a heads up that I will be doing some minor edits to try and improve this page. Please let me know if you have any advise or critiques about my work. Bonnie Gaston (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work so far! Safehaven86 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Federation of Teachers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Haus42's Comments== Solid B. Will need TLC to get to GA. Referencing and citation: iffy. Looks a little light on notes. Compare to Domenico Selvo. Coverage and accuracy: looks good. Structure: probably the biggest weakness Recommend change Trivia section to Notable Members. There are two sections that are about 1 line long. Suggests weakness in sectioning. Grammar: mostly fine, but needs a few passes. Some iffy language: "battle royale," "preK," "the devil with fire..." "Political and civil rights activities" is listy "Post-1970s history" is listy Supporting materials: not checked Some interesting pictures would help. Haus42 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ocean_Hill-Brownsville_strike

I followed a blue link to this article from National Caucus of Labor Committees, apparently this article used to have a section of the Ocean Hill Brownsville strike?--Kiyarrlls-talk 01:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

jump in membership

The graph shows a dramatic jump in membership around 2013/2014. Such an extreme change should be discussed, and, if possible, explained. Kdammers (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception

This section seems to be non-neutral and mostly lacking in notoriety. Only one of the "four documentaries" is linked to so the rest are non-notable and the only thing listed is that these films exist. 2601:541:480:18A0:3470:8702:BBFC:4590 (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)