It doesn’t seem to me that teachers in New York City got a huge boost from the deal announced yesterday between the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the city–but the mayor probably came close to assuring, if not guaranteeing, his re-election. And this whole chapter has been just another sorry reminder of the state of labor in the city.

The teachers got a 14.25 percent raise but it is over a pretty long period–four years and four months. And some teachers (at least from press reports) seem not to be celebrating because they are comparing it to what an arbitration panel had recommended last month: 11 percent over 37 months. In fact, a starting teacher under the deal earns $42,512–less than the $43,437 recommended by the arbitration panel (whose recommendations were non-binding). I suppose that’s a no-brainer from a union political point of view: get less for the people who aren’t hired yet and make sure the current members are happy. I get that the alternative might have been a strike–and that has to be a factor to consider. But, it doesn’t help teachers in the future try to eke out a decent living.

But, it’s Michael Bloomberg who understandably was thrilled. He takes off the table either a bitter strike that might have broken out before Election Day–or an endorsement of his opponent, Fernando Ferrer. I think there will probably be a sizable number of teachers who vote for Ferrer, partly because this contract deal is not that great, but Ferrer will not get the UFT’s huge get-out-the-vote operation to work on his behalf.

This whole chapter has been a sorry example of the disunity and disorganization in the New York City labor movement. Large unions that consider themselves progressive have endorsed Bloomberg for re-election based on the premise, as I understand it, that “he gave us” something and that he isn’t really a “bad” Republican. (Of course, the unions are not alone: I continue to have disturbing conversations with Democrats who will vote for the Republican mayor, either because he is pro-choice or because they think the city is working well so why change?)

Which says to me that we’re dead in the city if that’s the “vision” (and I use that term very loosely) labor pursues. If the goal is building a long-term progressive coalition in the city–one that will support union organizing (the mayor is a billionaire Republican businessmen who actively kept unions from organizing his company)–running to the trough to get each union’s pay-off and, then, deliver an endorsement, doesn’t seem like a very smart approach. Organized labor in the city should not be surprised when, after the election, say a Wal-Mart tries to open up and, surprise, unions find weaker support from people who backed Ferrer and who wondered why many in organized labor stood behind a white Republican billionaire (who is happy to raise funds for national Republicans who are beating labor’s brains out). I’ll add to this the dismay I’ve felt with the Working Families Party (WFP) which “endorsed” Ferrer but will not put him on the WFP ballot line because of the pro-Bloomberg unions who are a strong WFP constituency.

I find all of this disgusting and disheartening. The city may be “working” for some but it isn’t working for huge sections of the black, Hispanic and working-class white communities.