From The Wall Street Journal:

By Kris Maher

Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize.Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize.

The agreements are raising questions about union transparency and workers' rights. A summary document put together by the unions says it is critical to the success of the partnership "that we honor the confidentiality and not publicly disclose the existence of these agreements." That includes not disclosing them to union members.

The agreements involve workers who provide food, laundry and housekeeping services on an outsourced basis. The employers are Sodexho Inc. and the Compass Group USA unit of London-based Compass Group PLC. The unions are the 1.7 million-member Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, and Unite Here. The unions say they negotiated a similar agreement with Aramark Corp. but that Aramark broke the deal last year, and they're trying to reach a new one. An Aramark spokesman declined to comment on that.

The unions defend the agreements and their secrecy, saying they've helped workers join unions in growing industries at a time of declining union membership in many sectors. Last year, 7.5% of private-sector workers belonged to unions, compared with 17% 25 years ago. The agreements have "resulted in tens of thousands of workers getting unions" and been a major advance for the labor movement, said the president of Unite Here, Bruce Raynor.

He defended keeping them confidential, saying the companies involved insisted on that for competitive reasons.

The agreements go a step beyond what are called neutrality agreements. Those agreements give unions the ability to organize workers free of employer opposition. Unions often seek these in conjunction with an agreement to organize workers via card-signing -- a speedier alternative to secret-ballot elections, which can drag on and trigger counter-campaigns by employers. Companies often agree to neutrality after unions bring pressure on the employers from investors, local politicians and community leaders.

Labor experts said agreements such as those the SEIU and Unite Here reached open a window on a big debate within organized labor: what kind of tradeoffs to make when forging neutrality deals, and whether to let union members know of the tradeoffs.

The SEIU's president, Andy Stern, said the unions sought the agreements after realizing that traditional organizing campaigns at individual sites were proving ineffective. "The old ways aren't working, and we're trying to find different relationships with employers that guarantee workers a voice," he said. He dismissed the idea that the new agreements are undemocratic. "These workers have no unions; that's where we start from," he said.

In 2005, the SEIU and Unite Here created a partnership to represent workers that provide food and housekeeping services. Then they approached the companies individually. Since 2005, the unions have organized about 15,000 workers at Aramark, Compass and Sodexho, which collectively employ more than 300,000 people in North America, according to an SEIU spokeswoman.

A key question in the agreements is determining at which sites a union can organize. Unite Here's Mr. Raynor said specific sites where unions can organize are selected jointly by the companies and the unions.

The agreements reached with Sodexho and Compass in 2005 give the companies "the right to designate the sites" where unions may try to organize workers, according to a confidential summary of the agreements reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. The companies wouldn't comment on how locations were selected for organizing.

The agreements, which expire at then end of 2008, stipulate the number of employees that the unions can try to organize: 11,000 Sodexho workers and 20,000 Compass workers.

The Right to Strike

The unions gave up the right to strike and to post derogatory language about the companies on bulletin boards. With Compass, the unions agreed to these restrictions "anywhere in the world." In exchange, the companies agree not to oppose union organizing at the designated locations.

But limits are also set. "Local unions are not free to engage in organizing activities at any Compass or Sodexho locations unless the sites have been designated," says the confidential summary.

Mr. Stern said that if workers wanted to join a union at a location the companies had ruled out, having these agreements would enable a union to negotiate on the matter. "If workers want a union we can discuss that," he said. "Trust me, a lot more workers are coming in than being excluded by the agreement."

The companies said they reached the agreements because they support their employees' right to unionize. A spokeswoman for Compass, Cheryl Queen, said the agreement "protects the interest of both our associates and our clients, while allowing us to develop positive relationships with those trade unions." A Sodexho spokeswoman, Jaya Bohlmann, said, "We pride ourselves on having a very open dialogue with the union and their representatives."

The SEIU has added more members in recent years than any other labor union. But resentment against Mr. Stern has been building among some in the union, who see him as too close to management and too insistent on centralizing power.

Some argue that the SEIU is adding new members at the expense of current ones. "We really believe that Stern and the international are putting growth in numbers ahead of any other consideration of what a union means in the lives of working people," said Zev Kvitky, president of a small SEIU local that represents food-service and custodial workers at Stanford University. Mr. Stern, rejecting the criticism, said the union actually is becoming less centralized.

'Not Widespread'

Labor experts said it was highly unusual for unions to give employers the ability to choose which employees a union can try to organize. "That's not widespread," said Robert Bruno, associate professor of labor relations at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "When you agree to these kinds of conditions the question is what is lost and what is gained?"

The agreements enable the unions to organize workers through a simple card-signing process in which the companies agree to remain neutral, rather than a secret-ballot election. The companies agree to provide the unions with lists of employees and access to workers. The unions give up the ability to strike and agree that they will present issues before a labor-management committee before engaging in leafleting or rallies.

Read the full post...

At an SEIU jurisdictional hearing, United Healthcare Workers member and homecare worker Rosie Byers responds to SEIU's attempt to remove her and 65,000 other long term care workers out of UHW to another union, even though they voted by a 96% margin to stay in UHW.


Read the full post...

To hear radio coverage from Los Angeles station KPFK, use the player on the right.

MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif., May 6 –– The battle over the direction of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) intensified on Tuesday as the first in a series of hearings was held to determine the fate of more than 60,000 long-term caregivers who are members of United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW). UHW represents 150,000 caregivers in hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and home care throughout California.

The hearings are a staged attempt by SEIU leaders in Washington to dismantle UHW–the fastest growing local union in the country–by stripping the union of 60,000 plus nursing home and homecare workers without a fair, democratic vote.

In March, approximately 97 percent of the long term care workers who participated in an election conducted by an independent third-party voted to remain in UHW and voiced strong support of their statewide union of healthcare workers. That mandate from UHW members is being ignored by SEIU.

"I'm not going anywhere," stated Rosie Byers, a homecare worker for 30 years and member of the UHW Executive Board. "UHW is my union, because we are committed to democracy, member empowerment, and have a proven track record of winning great contracts and organizing the unorganized. We voted to remain in UHW, so all healthcare workers can stand together to raise standards for our patients and working families."

UHW members have faced an unprecedented attack from their own parent union, SEIU, for advocating for reforms designed to make SEIU more democratic and accountable to its members. These proposals have been denounced by Andy Stern, president of SEIU, who favors top-down, big business unionism by making secret, behind-the-scenes deals that exclude rank-and-file involvement.

"It's appalling that SEIU leaders based in Washington have retaliated against rank-and-file members and threatened the future of UHW, because we don't agree with their top-down approach," proclaimed Patrick Forte, a chief steward at Diamond Ridge Healthcare Center. "Members should lead the way and have final say in all collective bargaining, contracts settlements, and union mergers. We are trying to reform SEIU to reclaim our voice and ensure democracy."

This latest attack on UHW comes just weeks before the SEIU Convention in Puerto Rico–a meeting held every four years to establish the direction of the 1.7 million member organization to make amendments to the SEIU Constitution & Bylaws. UHW and its allies have submitted various convention proposals to reform the direction of SEIU by ensuring rank-and-file workers have a real voice in contract negotiations, mergers, and other decisions that directly affect them. More information is available at www.SEIUvoice.org.

The 150,000-member SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West is the largest hospital and fastest growing healthcare union in the western United States and represents every type of healthcare worker, including nurses, professional, technical and service classifications. Our mission is to achieve high-quality healthcare for all.

Read the full post...

Today, SEIU will take what could be a first step toward undemocratically transferring up to 65,000 members of United Healthcare Workers West into another SEIU local with lower standards and a less successful organizing record. It’s not a done deal, but if history is any indication, SEIU may try to deny union members a fair vote on this upcoming decision.

What’s happening today and tomorrow is a “fact-finding” hearing on the issue of “long-term care jurisdiction in California.” What this means is: which local union will nursing home and homecare workers be members of? UHW's nursing home and homecare members already know the answer; they voted overwhelmingly in March to stay united with hospital workers in UHW. However, SEIU is forging ahead with what appears to be a plan to dismantle UHW.

It’s an important issue, because combining local unions and coordinating across industry lines has been a key component of SEIU’s strategy in recent years. Locals 250 and 399 voted in 2004 to merge and form UHW—our members knew we were stronger as a single, statewide healthcare workers union, rather than two separate local unions. In other states, combining and realigning jurisdiction has also occurred.

However, the process must be democratic. Under SEIU’s current by-laws, there is no guarantee of a fair vote for members who could be moved from one local to another, or merged. When dozens of small SEIU locals in California were consolidated into four large locals in 2006, the votes of the members were pooled—meaning the members of a small local could have voted 100 percent against the merger and still been forced into a merger.

The process also shouldn't be politically motivated or structured to award political allies. In Illinois, SEIU just merged long term care and hospital locals into one mega local. But here in California, SEIU is insisting that long term care workers need to be in their own union, separate from hospital workers. When California's long term care union has achieved lower standards and not succeeded in organizing more workers, it's difficult to understand how SEIU could think UHW's nursing home and homecare members would be better served by moving into that union.

One of the constitutional amendments that we are bringing to the SEIU Convention in June will guarantee a fair election process for any future mergers, consolidations, or other jurisdictional moves. The amendment would require a majority of all votes together, and a majority in each affected local. That means a 100,000-member local could not simply swallow a 5,000-member local just because the bigger one wanted to.

We’ll be posting more on the jurisdictional issue and the hearing process later this week, including why it’s better for nursing home and homecare workers to be in the same union as hospital workers.
Read the full post...

UHW points out that SEIU's lawsuit is legally flawed and an abuse of the processes of the Federal Court.

Download the full letter [PDF]
Read the full post...

From SF Business Times:

In an "open letter" addressed to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9 million member Service Employees International Union, dozens of U.S. authors, academics and several journalists on Thursday took Stern to task for an ongoing feud with United Healthcare Workers West, an SEIU local based in Oakland.

In an "open letter" addressed to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9 million member Service Employees International Union, dozens of U.S. authors, academics and several journalists on Thursday took Stern to task for an ongoing feud with United Healthcare Workers West, an SEIU local based in Oakland.

Among the signatories: famed radical and iconoclast Noam Chomsky, emeritus professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; authors Howard Zinn and Mike Davis; and a host of professors from institutions like UC Santa Barbara, Harvard Law School, Yale, City University of New York, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, New York University, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, University of Washington, UCLA, and a number of other universities across the country.

"We are writing to express our deep concerns about SEIU's threatened trusteeship over its third largest local (UHW)," the open letter stated. "We believe that there must always be room within organized labor for legitimate and principled dissent, if our movement is to survive and grown."

The writers went on to say that "(p)utting UHW under trusteeship would send a very troubling message and be viewed by many as a sign that internal democracy is not valued or tolerated within SEIU. In our view, this would have negative consequences for the workers directly affected, the SEIU itself, and the labor movement as a whole. We strongly urge you to avoid such a tragedy."

Escalating an ongoing internal feud, the Washington, D.C.-based SEIU sued UHW's longtime president Sal Rosselli and other leaders of the local April 29 in federal court in Los Angeles for allegedly diverting "at least $3 million" in UHW funds to an educational fund under their exclusive control. UHW, however, insists the lawsuit is an "act of retaliation" against efforts by Rosselli and 150,000-member UHW to reform the international union. UHW says it created the so-called education fund "in full compliance with the law, and appropriately released all of the details of its actions."

Stern and SEIU reportedly are considering seeking a trusteeship to oust Rosselli and other UHW leaders from their posts. UHW represents approximately 150,000 health-care workers in California, and has long been a leading voice in statewide and local health policy debates -- and a thorn in the side of many hospital and nursing home operators in the Golden State.

The open letter didn't mention the lawsuit, or other details of the internal SEIU contretemps.

Read the full post...

Dear Andy:

We are writing to you as journalists, authors, political activists, and educators who are committed to organized labor because of its important role in social justice struggles in the U.S. Some of us have longstanding ties to SEIU and have done research, writing, or labor education work involving its members, organizers, and local leaders. Those of us who deal with graduate students or undergraduates have encouraged younger people to pursue internships or full-time job opportunities with SEIU and other Change To Win or AFL-CIO unions. A number of us belong to unions ourselves. Many of us have been part of community-labor coalitions or campus-based groups like Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice (when it was still active) because we support organizing and bargaining by janitors, cafeteria workers, and other service sector employees.

Download the letter [PDF]

We are writing to express our deep concern about SEIU's threatened trusteeship over its third largest local, United Healthcare Workers (UHW). We believe that there must always be room within organized labor for legitimate and principled dissent, if our movement is to survive and grow.

Putting UHW under trusteeship would send a very troubling message and be viewed, by many, as a sign that internal democracy is not valued or tolerated within SEIU. In our view, this would have negative consequences for the workers directly affected, the SEIU itself, and the labor movement as a whole. We strongly urge you to avoid such a tragedy.

Sincerely,


Michael Albert, Author, co-founder South End Press and Z Magazine*
Richard P. Appelbaum, Professor of Sociology, University of California-Santa Barbara
Stanley Aronowitz, Professor of Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center
Sara Abraham, Sociology, University of Toronto
Frank Bardacke, Author and Educator
Jennifer Berkshire, Journalist and Editor
Elaine Bernard, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School
Fred Block, Sociology Department, University of California-Davis
Edna Bonacich, UC-Riverside
Eileen Boris, Women's Studies Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Joanna Brenner, Portland State University
Robert Brenner, Professor of History, UCLA
Dan Brook, Sociology, San Jose State University
Michael Jacoby Brown, Founder, Jewish Organizing Initiative
Anita Chan, Australian National University
Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus), MIT
Levon Chorbajian, Sociology, U-Mass, Lowell
Dan Clawson, Sociology Professor, U-Mass Amherst
Bruce Cohen, Associate History Professor, Worcester State College
Tim Costello, Labor Researcher and Author
Mike Davis, Author and Professor, UC-Irvine
Ellen David-Friedman, Founder, Vermont Workers Center and former VEA Staff Member
Michael Denning, Professor of American Studies and Director, Initiative on Labor and Culture, Yale
G.William Domhoff, Sociology Professor, UC Santa Cruz
Jill Esbenshade, San Diego State University
Tess Ewing, U-Mass Boston Labor Center
Rick Fantasia, Sociology Dept., Smith College
Leon Fink, Professor of History, University of Illinois at Chicago
Richard Flacks, UC Santa Barbara
Bill Fletcher, Jr. Co-founder, Center for Labor Renewal & Exec. Editor, Blackcommentator.com
John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon
Harris Freeman, U-Mass Amherst Labor Center
Yoshie Furuhashi, MRZine
Bill Gallegos, Communities for a Better Environment
William A. Gamson, Professor of Sociology, Boston College and former American Sociological Association president
Zelda Gamson, Senior Associate, New England Resource Center for Higher Education
Dan Georgianna, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Sam Gindin, Packer Chair in Social Justice at York University, former CAW Research Director
George Gonos, Sociology, SUNY Potsdam
Suzanne Gordon, Journalist & Author
Jim Green, Professor of History and Labor Studies, U-Mass Boston
Brian Greenberg, Department of History and Anthropology, Monmouth University
Michael Honey, University of Washington
Thandabantu Iverson, Assistant Professor in Labor Studies, Indiana University
Robin D.G.Kelley, Professor of History, USC
Howard Kimeldorf, University of Michigan
Jennifer Klein, Department of History, Yale
Kitty Krupat, City University of New York
Nelson Lichtenstein, Professor of History, UC Santa Barbara
Stephanie Luce, Associate Professor, Labor Center, U-Mass-Amherst
Biju Mathew, Assistant Professor of Business, Rider University
Dale Melcher, U-Mass Labor Extension
Tom Mertes, UCLA Center for Social Theory
Jack Metzger, Emeritus Professor of Humanities, Roosevelt University
Nancy McLean, Professor of History, Northwestern University
James Monsonis, Professor Emeritus, Simon's Rock College
David Montgomery, Professor Emeritus, Yale
Carolina Bank Munoz, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Brooklyn College-CUNY
Ruth Needleman, Professor of Labor Studies, Indiana University
Manny Ness, Brooklyn College, CUNY
Frances Fox Piven, CUNY Graduate Center
Vijay Prashad, Trinity College
Peter Rachleff, History Dept., Macalester College
Marcus Rediker, History, Univ. of Pittsburgh
Adolph Reed, Professor of Political Science, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Thomas Reifer, Assistant Professor, Sociology and Ethnic Studies, University of San Diego
Christopher Rhomberg, Yale University
Corey Robin, Associate Professor, Political Science, Brooklyn College
Ian Robinson, University of Michigan
Carlos Rosado, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Lucy Rosenblatt, Psychotherapist, Health Workers for People Over Profits
Andrew Ross, New York University
Robert J. S. Ross, Sociology Professor, Clark University
Daisy Rooks, Rutgers University
Jay Schaffner, Author and Moderator, Portside
Michael Schwartz, SUNY Stony Brook
Robert Schwartz, Author and Attorney
Kim Scipes, Professor of Sociology, Purdue
Dennis Serrette, President, United Association for
Labor Education
Rae Sovereign, Labor Studies Program, Indiana University-South Bend
Chris Spannos, ZNet and Z Communications
Judith Stepan-Norris, UC-Irvine
Alan Wald, Professor, University of Michigan
Richard Walker, Geography Dept., UC-Berkeley
Immanual Wallerstein, Professor of Sociology, Yale University
Victor Wallis, Berklee College of Music
Andrea S. Walsh, Lecturer, MIT
Eve Weinbaum, U-Mass Amherst
David Wellman, Sociology Dept., UC-Santa Cruz
Suzi Weissman, St.Mary’s College of CA
Cal Winslow, Fellow, Environmental Politics, UC Berkeley
Steffie Woolhandler & David Himmelstein, Harvard School of Public Health and PNHP
John Womack,History Professor, Harvard
Michael D. Yates, Professor Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh
Dr. Quentin Young, PNHP
Maurice Zeitlin, Dept. of Sociology, UCLA
Howard Zinn, Author, Playwright, and Professor Emeritus, Boston University
Michael Zweig, SUNY at Stony Brook
*Partial list. All institutional connections noted for identification purposes only. (Labor Donated)


Read the full post...

From Labor Notes:

By Mark Brenner

Mounting conflicts within the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have spilled into the delegate election process for the union’s convention, scheduled for June 1-4 in Puerto Rico. SEIU opposition activists, particularly from several large locals on the West Coast, are crying foul—denouncing what they say are coordinated interventions by International staff and appointed leaders in the delegate election process.

The tussle over delegate elections is the latest chapter in the high-profile challenge to SEIU’s current direction, led by the Oakland-based United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW), the third-largest local inside the union. UHW leaders claim that members are being shut out of meaningful decision-making in the union.

Rank-and-file dissent has spread well beyond UHW, sparking the creation of a reform caucus inside the union, SEIU Member Activists for Reform Today (SMART). Both UHW leaders and SMART activists are backing a series of democratic reforms to the SEIU constitution at the June convention, including direct election of international officers, the right for members to elect bargaining committees and approve contract proposals, and a requirement that future mergers be approved by a majority of the members affected.

STAFF INTERFERENCE

One high-profile effort to contain the influence of UHW and its president Sal Rosselli occurred in the recent delegate race inside SEIU Local 1021, a public sector local in the Bay Area created last year from the merger of 10 existing locals.

According to a complaint filed with the local’s election committee in mid-April, senior staff in the local worked secretly with the appointed local president, Damita Davis-Howard, to “design and develop her entire campaign (everything from talking points to field strategy).” The election complaint cites email exchanges between Davis-Howard and top staffers at the local which first came to light in an April 2 exposé in the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

Calling themselves the “salsa team,” Davis-Howard and her top staffers coordinated strategy, exchanged anti-Rosselli talking points, and worked to identify potential delegates sympathetic to the agenda of SEIU International President Andy Stern.

The provisional bylaws for Local 1021 require staff to remain neutral in local elections, a point repeatedly stressed to lower-level staff during the election, according to the leaked emails.

“This was about controlling the outcome of the election,” said Roxanne Sanchez, a top vote-getter in the delegate race and one of 15 members who filed the election complaint. “They wanted to make sure they could pick the delegation through this manipulation, and through their influence.

“This is the frightening thing about having a staff-driven union,” she added. “They start making decisions for you. They got involved because they thought they should have control of the outcome.”

Brian Cruz, another top delegate vote-getter (and a signer of the complaint), described this election as a dry run for the current leadership. “They needed Damita to win, and win big, because it wouldn’t look good for her otherwise,” he said. “She was appointed to her position and has never run for office before. They were trying to make sure she could win the race for president in a year or two.”

SKUNK TEAM

In addition to coordinating with top staff in the local, both the election complaint and the email trail link Davis-Howard to Josie Mooney, a special assistant to Stern and former executive director of SEIU Local 790, one of the locals that merged into 1021 last year.

Helping elect pro-Stern delegates in her old local, however, was not Mooney’s only role in containing the pre-convention discord emerging inside SEIU. According to Thomas Dewar, former communications staff for Local 1021, he was invited by Mooney in early March to join a “skunk team” designed to tarnish Rosselli’s image and quell the pro-democracy movement building in advance of the convention.

“Maybe I was naïve, but I suggested that we appropriate his platform,” Dewar said. “It seemed like pretty reasonable stuff, but they didn’t want to have the debate with the UHW. It was all about shutting Sal down.”

Dewar reports that Mooney’s “skunk team” was personally sanctioned by Stern, and included International Vice President Tom DeBruin, along with San Francisco consultant Mark Mosher, whose firm has represented both the UHW and Sutter Health, a hospital chain.

WHO’S A MEMBER?

Responding on Mooney’s behalf, International spokesperson Andrew McDonald denied any wrongdoing. “There is no hit squad, no skunk team, they don’t exist, period,” said McDonald. “Dewar is circulating a sensational account of a dinner meeting where leaders were talking about how to best get SEIU’s message out.”

Within her old local Mooney’s efforts to rally the pro-Stern forces haven’t been ignored. An initial report from the Local 1021 elections committee exonerated Mooney, the local’s top staff, and Davis-Howard, ruling that the local’s “bylaws provide that staff can be members, and as staff named in the complaint are members of the union, they are therefore eligible to campaign in support of candidates.”

For Cruz, this outcome was not surprising. “The election committee was appointed by Damita. They saw our complaint and threw it in the trash.”

According to Local 1021 executive board member Ed Kinchley, also a signer of the complaint, the election committee’s report did not put the issue to rest. The question of staff involvement in the delegate races occupied center stage at the local’s executive board meeting on April 21, where, Kinchley reports, Mooney was stripped of her membership in the local.

Reached via email, Mooney insists she is still a retired member in good standing in the local.

UHW DELEGATE SNAFU

The International has also turned its attention to delegate election irregularities, although not inside Local 1021. On April 15, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger ruled that the recent delegate elections inside UHW—where the local restricted eligibility to elected shop stewards—was a violation of the SEIU constitution. McDonald condemned UHW’s delegate election plan as a “conscious decision to exclude 97 percent of the members of the union.”

Roughly two-thirds of the 146 person UHW convention delegation is composed of their rank-and-file executive board. The delegate election was designed to identify the remaining one-third of UHW’s delegates.

According to Mel Garcia, a medical assistant for Kaiser hospital in Hayward, California, and member of the UHW’s election committee, the UHW executive board approved the requirement after legal counsel assured that it was constitutional. “It’s disheartening that we made a mistake like this,” Garcia said. “But we’re taking responsibility for it and moving to correct it as quickly as we can.”

At issue now is whether the newly elected delegates will actually be permitted to attend the convention, since the new election will fall outside of the timetable established by the union’s convention call.

WHICH WAY FORWARD?

For Sanchez, the delegate election issues in Local 1021 are a microcosm of the broader problems inside SEIU. “Right now we have staff leaders trying to run everything,” Sanchez said. “Workers have no have control over their organization.”

“Going into the convention, the whole issue is democracy, it’s about voice for the workers,” Sanchez said. “Andy Stern feels like the quickest way to move his program is to remove rank-and-file leaders and put staff in their place. It’s not going to work.”
rest of the post here.

Read the full post...

Statement by UHW President Sal Rosselli

In recent months United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW) and its allies inside SEIU have launched a campaign, in the face of constant threats and retaliation, to reform our International Union.

The most recent act of retaliation is their announcement today of plans to sue UHW leaders. UHW’s elected executive board members created the education fund in question in full compliance with the law, and appropriately released all of the details of its actions. Last week, the fund’s board decided to dissolve the fund and return its resources to UHW. UHW notified SEIU yesterday of this action.

Even so, SEIU scheduled a press conference, talked to reporters and distributed copies of the suit publicly, all before notifying UHW. The dissolution of the fund, the remedy sought by SEIU’s lawsuit, is already underway, making it frivolous.

The lawsuit and the PR circus surrounding it are a hoax being perpetrated on the press and, most shamefully, upon SEIU members, in order to smear us and shut down the Stern team's political opposition. That, if anything, is an inappropriate use of members' dues.

SEIU’s use of selective enforcement is astounding. Rather than going after officers and staff of UHW on trumped-up charges, SEIU should be launching an internal investigation of the Labor Department’s recent charges resulting from Vice President Dave Regan’s financial improprieties and interference in internal union elections in Nevada. SEIU also should investigate charges against Vice President Tom DeBruin and Assistant to the President Josie Mooney for interference and possible labor law violations in delegate elections in California.

Their purpose is to again stifle our dissent, and we won't be silenced.


Supporting documents:

4/28/08 Sal Rosselli letter in response to Andy Stern's April 27th email [PDF]
4/24/08 UHW Executive Board Resolution on Education Fund Return of Assets [PDF]
4/24/08 Education Fund Resolution to Dissolve [PDF]

Tell SEIU: Focus on real issues, not frivolous lawsuits


Read the full post...

It’s lights, camera, ACTION at Motion Picture & Television Fund Hospital, where caregivers ratified by a 98% margin a new 5-year contract that provides retroactive wage increases, financial security, improved job security, and a ban on subcontracting to more than 570 healthcare workers.

Throughout nine months of contract negotiations, workers demonstrated tremendous strength and unity by organizing successful worksite actions, building political support, and educating the community about their campaign to ensure the best medical care possible for MPTF patients. Their efforts proved to be successful.

A settlement was reached in negotiations earlier this week, and the elected members of the UHW bargaining committee unanimously recommended the agreement to their coworkers for ratification.

“We are absolutely thrilled to have made such great progress through this agreement by remaining united, organized, and involved,” said Myra Torres a Health Promotions Representative at the hospital for 12 years. “What we achieved, will improve the lives of our patients by helping to attract and retain the most qualified caregivers in the area.”

The contract is effective through October 2012 and covers among others, Nursing Assistants, Licensed Vocational Nurses, Respiratory Care Practitioners, Skilled Technicians, Maintenance Workers, and Service Workers. MPTF Hospital and Health Centers are located throughout the greater Los Angeles area and support the health and well being of the entertainment industry community.

That's a wrap!
Read the full post...

From BNA Daily Labor Report

United Healthcare Workers-West, a 130,000-member local of the Service Employees International Union, in recent weeks has won representation for some 2,000 workers in three hospitals and nine health clinics across California.

According to UHW, three of the four elections were conducted under "free and fair election" procedures including neutrality agreements that UHW had negotiated at other health care facilities with the same ownership. Three of the elections were conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, and the fourth was conducted under a card-check agreement.

In an April 11 election conducted by the NLRB, workers at Coastal Communities Hospital in Santa Ana voted in two separate elections for UHW representation. According to an official with NLRB Region 21 in Los Angeles, a unit of 238 service, maintenance, technical, and office clerical workers voted 128-43 for UHW, while a unit of 30 professional workers voted 16-6 for the union.

Coastal Communities Hospital is owned by Integrated Healthcare Holdings Inc., which operates three other hospitals in Orange County including Western Medical Center in Anaheim. In contract negotiations last year for employees at Western Medical Center, UHW won the right for nonunion employees at other IHHI hospitals to vote for union representation in a "free and fair elections agreement," UHW spokesman Blinker Wood said April 21.

Meanwhile, a majority of employees at Tri-City Medical Center, a public, district hospital in Oceanside, recently signed union authorization cards designating UHW as their bargaining agent, according to a spokeswoman for the California Department of Industrial Relations.

The California State Mediation & Conciliation Service April 9 verified that 301 out of 578 advanced care technicians, dietary workers, operating room and emergency room technicians, and other workers at Tri-City Medical Center signed union authorization cards in favor of UHW, Wood said. The agency verified the cards under a state law making it responsible for determining whether an employee organization has the necessary majority for exclusive or majority status at a local public agency.

In another NLRB election conducted March 26, caregivers and support staff at St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood voted 325-149 for UHW representation, with 45 additional challenged ballots that were not determinative, according to the NLRB Region 21 official. The bargaining unit consists of 586 employees, he added.

St. Francis is part of the Daughters of Charity Health Systems. Earlier UHW negotiated a neutrality agreement with the health system that established ground rules for the union representation process at its other facilities.

Another SEIU Local Charged With Interference

UHW Administrative Vice President John Borsos told BNA April 21 that despite the election agreement, the Daughters of Charity campaigned against the union. In addition, he said, another SEIU local also interfered with the election.

According to information on UHW's Web site, three days before the election, registered nurses from SEIU District 1199 WV/KY/OH sent a letter to workers at St. Francis denouncing UHW for allegedly colluding with the California Nurses Association to raid SEIU hospitals in Ohio and Las Vegas. "Ironically, the same wrongful tactic that CNA did in Ohio of interfering in an election where workers were seeking to have a voice also was done by our international union leaders to workers at St. Francis," UHW said.

UHW was referring to actions by CNA that resulted in SEIU District 1199 WV/KY/OH and Catholic Healthcare Partners cancelling elections scheduled at nine CHP facilities in Ohio for some 7,700 employees. Less than a week before the scheduled elections, CNA/NNOC began distributing leaflets to CHP workers, accusing the hospital system and SEIU of having reached an illegal, "back room" deal that compromised workers' rights (48 DLR A-15, 03/12/08 ).

Meanwhile, on March 27, employees at nine Catholic Healthcare West Medical Foundation clinics in the Sacramento area voted 319-57 in an NLRB election for UHW representation, according to an official in NLRB's Region 20 office in San Francisco. Some 427 caregivers and technical workers are in the bargaining unit, she said. This election also took place under similar neutrality ground rules UHW negotiated with CHW.

Read the full post...

From Union Democracy Review

By Herman Benson

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union and labor's latest celebrity, seems to be resurrecting a neglected ideology: the concept of a militarized "democratic" centralism. For him and his followers, the hope of imposing it upon a newly invigorated labor movement may be a utopian illusion. For union democracy, it is a nightmare. Hints, but only hints, of his underlying philosophy were implicit in his schemes for reorganizing his own SEIU and the whole labor movement. But its trend has become manifest as he is apparently moving to crush critics on the west coast, impose a repressive trusteeship over the 140,000-member United Healthcare Workers-West, and cut down Sal Rosselli, its president.

In February this year, Rosselli resigned from the SEIU International Executive Committee so that he could feel free to criticize what he charged was the "undemocratic practices we have experienced first hand." The SEIU convention was coming up at the end of May. "In good conscience," he wrote, "I can longer allow simple majorities of the Executive Committee to outweigh my responsibility to our members to act out of principle on these critically important matters. I say this with no ill will, but with a deep sense of conviction." [Rosselli to Stern 2/9/08]

They differ over bargaining strategy, over the role of the international and locals, over the right of the membership to veto the merger and dissolution of local unions, over whether to go easy on employers to get a foot in the door for unionism. The issues in dispute are not trivial, and the charges and countercharges are correspondingly harsh. Rosselli accuses the Stern people of "company unionism" and "top-down organizing" to beef up membership statistics by any means whatsoever. They denounce him for sabotaging the SEIU drive to organize, for falsifying the record, for hypocritically benefiting from policies he now derogates.

This is no idle talk at a cocktail party; it is a serious difference over policy. He attacks vigorously; they reply in kind. So far, routine. That's what democracy is for, to allow an outlet even for the bitterest of debates. But the problem is that Rosselli's critics go beyond denouncing him for criticizing. They would make his very right to criticize illicit. And, because they are armed with organizational power, they would resolve the dispute not simply by democratic decision but by suppression. The irony is that they wrap autocratic intentions in the flag of a democratic "majority". Rosselli, they insist, must go along with the "majority." But a majority in power can always take care of itself. The essence of democracy is to preserve an orderly means of opposing a majority.

In replying to its self-posed question, "What is real union democracy?" The SEIU's anti-Rosselli web site, "Fact Checker," pandering to the bias against any genuine spirit of democracy asks, "Is democracy abiding by majority rule just when you like the outcome but ignoring it when you don't?" But democracy, as we practice it in America, cherishes precisely the right of a minority to oppose the majority. "Fact Checker" continues in line with what has become official SEIU ideology, "Is it democracy when 11 out of 12 workers in an industry are not even at the table?" What they mean by this muddle is what they have suggested before more clearly: members must abstain from exercising their union democracy until most workers, now nonunion, are organized. By that standard, union democracy must wait patiently for a long time, perhaps forever.

They use the boilerplate language available to any overbearing union official annoyed anytime by any critical dissident. Mary Kay Henry, international executive SEIU vice president, writes in the course of a long attack on Rosselli [Calitics.com website 3/25/08], "he is giving employers ammunition to use against workers..."

Three members of the SEIU international executive committee found Rosselli's decision to speak out impermissible. "Just as we expect members of our local unions to unite behind a common strategy after there has been a full debate," they wrote, "and a majority has reached a democratic decision, we as leaders must do the same." There it is. Once a "democratic decision" is reached everyone, members and leaders, must swallow their opinions, keep quiet, and toe the line. We discuss, we decide, we unite, you shut up, we remain a fighting force. If you open your mouth against the line we discipline you. (How some might love to apply this principle to the Iraq War! The irony in this case is that, as they wrote, the SEIU was on the eve of an international convention to open in three months. If now is not the time for that democratic discussion, when?) [Regan et al to Rosselli 2/11/08]

That same tone now permeates life in the SEIU. In 2006, as the SEIU was about to run a membership referendum on creating those huge California megalocals, Stern turned the union into one advocacy monolith to guarantee a favorable outcome. He ordered, "All local unions, union officers, and assigned staff must fully cooperate in the implementation and transition process to assure that this decision is carried out in an orderly fashion... No union funds, resources or staff may be used to oppose, interfere or undermine in any way the IEB determination in this matter." (The referendum carried, but according to one report, only 16% of the membership voted.)

In the same spirit, applicants for appointment to the executive board of the new 45,000-member Local 521 had to sign an oath of loyalty to the union administration, including these assurances: "I will not ... engage in personal attacks on other members, staff, or leaders at unions meetings, in the press, or other literature, or venues". Once a decision has been made, I will support that decision to members and others... I will not ... take ... legal action against the union for actions they take in their legal role as leaders as long as I remain a member of this appointed board or committee." Come weal, come woe; high or low, no one can remain in any official union position and ever ever act against any misdeeds by other officials.

Here then is how the labor movement would operate if the system being implanted by Stern could take root and flourish: A policy is adopted, say at the international convention, the union's highest constitutional authority --- for the sake of argument we make the generous assumption that it has been a "democratic" decision. Then for the next five years until the next convention (four years for the SEIU) every union institution and representative, must fall in line. No criticism permitted: every hired staff employee, every elected officer in every local and in the international, every steward appointed or elected, every editor and PR spokesperson, every executive board member of every local must propagate the vaunted "democratic" decision. None can oppose it or publicly express misgivings on pain of swift dismissal. Stern envisions a monolithic disciplined army of thousands, all spouting the politically correct official line. After five years, during which everyone sang the same notes in harmony, comes the next convention; and at last, presumably, democracy's brief moment has arrived.

Proceedings at the convention, as always, are carefully manipulated by the administration. Under the Stern regimen, those in power will already have been safely protected against criticism for the previous five years. If, at the convention, venturesome critics are unusually resilient, if they are not demoralized by five years of deadly uniformity, if they are lucky enough to get the floor and keep it before the question is called, they might get five minutes in the sun, maybe even seven or ten. Then it is all over. The delegates, people who knew how to stay on top during those five silent years, adopt the new official policy. The period for "democratic" debate is over. Time to unite and fight and bite your tongue. Five new silent years loom.

But is this bureaucrat's dream likely to come alive? Perhaps in part, but never in full panoply. By now, websites and the Internet afford too many ways for members and officers alike to evade the proscriptions on democracy. Federal law offers some protection for civil liberties for members in their unions. Stern will never have full scope for the fulfillment of his dream; nevertheless, as we see in California, federal law and the union constitution still provide ample means for chilling dissent.

Read the full post...