I wanted to clarify SEIU-UHW West’s Delegate voting issues. I serve on the election committee and this is my personal “mia culpa”, or as the popular vernacular would say, “Am I Bad?” The executive board of SEIU-UHW West has 5 volunteer members, including myself, serving on the election committee to oversee a 150,000-member election.

We had several meetings to establish guidelines for eligibility and one of the questions raised was how, once the membership was informed that the convention was being held in Puerto Rico, do we conduct an election that best served the members while avoiding a run of hopefuls in search only of a free vacation to Puerto Rico?

I believe it was a legitimate question as we were not only acting as an election committee but as Stewards of our fellow members money, and as such wanted to do everything possible to spend dues money wisely. As you can well imagine it will not be cheap to send close to 200 people to Puerto Rico and house them for 4 days on behalf of the members of SEIU-UHW West.

We, as a volunteer member committee asked legal counsel if it would be appropriate and legal to require people to be stewards in order to run as a delegate. Our legal counsel stated in NO uncertain terms that this was lawful because the members at large democratically elected stewards.

Our biggest concern was to ensure adequate representation of our members not to disenfranchise them. Hindsight is always 20/20 and had we been experts in labor law we obviously would have made a different decision. But we are not experts in labor law, we are healthcare workers and patient advocates volunteering our spare time. At this very moment we are volunteering our time to remedy this mistake and will be working around the clock to re-run an election in accordance with applicable Labor law.

Now I would like to contrast that with the SEIU 1021 debacle in which you clearly had staff involved in the election process, with the blessing of SEIU, pushing for specific candidates and subverting the candidates that weren’t “on board” with the International agenda. There are at least some very gray areas here but do you see SEIU urging them to run a second election to avoid the appearance of impropriety? NOPE!!!!

Also interesting to note is that we (SEIU-UHW West) are being harangued for the very process that Andy Stern and other SEIU officers are fighting to protect. The International officers and Mr. Stern are elected every 4 years by a delegate process not a full membership vote. In that respect I believe that the international is making our “One Member One Vote” argument for us. The delegate process for electing officers at all levels should be abolished. Our mistake in the delegate selection process only demonstrates how flawed and endemic this methodology is within SEIU.

To my fellow SEIU-UHW West members who may feel disenfranchised by the delegate selection process I offer my sincerest apology and please know that we are all working very hard on the second election and, if need be, I will again gladly fly from Southern California to Oakland on a moments notice and open, sort, count, and certify thousands of ballots on my day off of work.

Michael T. Rivera, R.C.P.

Perinatal-Pediatric Specialist (Note: Not a Labor Lawyer)

SEIU-UHW West Executive Board Vice President

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Yesterday’s Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left – out of touch with mainstream American values.  Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats.  Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn’t help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the “land of fruits and nuts.”  Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article – except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics.  Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.

Without even waiting to hear what working-class voters in Pennsylvania thought about Obama’s infamous statement, the media pronounced that it changed the dynamic of the presidential race – with some comparing it to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  Because Clinton and John McCain both attacked Obama for being “elitist” and “condescending,” the press allowed the story to run far longer than it should.  And because Obama said it at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Clinton made sure to remind voters about that fact.

So what does the San Francisco Chronicle – our hometown newspaper of record – do when the City gets smeared by politicians of both parties?  Write a puff analysis which reinforces the notion that we make Democrats look bad – a place where national politicians come to campaign at their peril.  Marinucci could have mentioned that the fundraiser was in Presidio Heights – one of our most exclusive (and conservative) neighborhoods – rather than tar the whole City with an “elitist” smear.  Instead, she quotes Pat Buchanan as proof that Obama really screwed up with that statement.

It’s not the first time that the right has attacked “San Francisco Values” as a means of marginalizing Democrats.  But San Francisco values are mainstream American values.  We were one of the first cities to pass a domestic partnership law – “civil unions” that even George Bush and Dick Cheney now find acceptable.  In 2006, we were the first place that required employers to provide paid sick leave – and now other cities have since followed our lead.  We’re a city of creative entrepreneurs who have started cutting-edge businesses that are household names.  We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

But Marinucci didn’t bother to interview any San Franciscans for her piece – let alone ask working-class folks in Pennsylvania if they were offended by Obama’s remarks – except for one local politico: Peter Ragone, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s former press secretary, who (according to an earlier Chronicle story) helped the Clinton campaign’s media team in Texas.  Marinucci did not disclose Ragone’s conflict-of-interest when she quoted his take on the situation.

Obama’s statement, said Ragone in the Chronicle, “sounded like someone running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not President.  The Democratic Party should have learned you have to respect people’s cultural experiences in order to get their votes.  If Democrats want to win in California, they have to win in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and the I-80 corridor. If you truly feel that way about people in those places, you’re just not going to get their votes.”

It’s precisely such divisive talk that prevents Democrats from truly standing up for what we believe in – and depresses San Franciscans into believing that our values are not the values of mainstream America.  It is why liberals then allow Democrats to get away with taking offensive policy positions – all in the name of being electable to the average swing voter.  The Left has been so haunted by the ghost of George McGovern for the past 35 years that we’ve lost all will to believe that real change can happen at the ballot box.

Was Obama’s statement culturally insensitive?  Let’s take a closer look at his exact words, and see why it was not disrespectful to the swing-state working-class voter:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

To suggest that working-class Pennsylvanians who’ve had their jobs shipped overseas are “bitter” is not condescending – it’s simply stating the truth.  As Randy Shaw wrote this week, if Clinton believes that they are not bitter, she is almost as delusional as George W. Bush.  And when Fox News actually interviewed such voters, they pretty much confirmed that it’s true.

The tricky part, of course, was for Obama to suggest that they “cling to guns or religion.”  But he never suggested that guns or religion are therefore bad.  What he meant to say is that during hard times, people stick with what they are familiar with and where they take comfort.  Conversely, they also mistrust the unfamiliar – people who don’t look like them, people who come from other countries, and coastal elitists.  It’s the politics of fear – and when voters are anxious, they become vulnerable to such appeals.

Could such an honest assessment hurt Obama?  Maybe a little, but anyone who believes that it rises to the level of the Jeremiah Wright controversy – where Obama’s pastor was caught on YouTube saying “God damn America” – is completely delusional.  And Obama did a stellar job handling that situation, with the most eloquent speech he has given in his entire career – where he effectively said that we must have an honest dialogue about race in this country.  But after the “bitter” comment, the media said Obama was in trouble.

Five days later, we now have fresh polls out of Pennsylvania that show that the brouhaha had practically no effect.  A friend of mine who’s there said that it’s a bigger deal nationally than locally (even though it has been widely disseminated.)  The issue will boil over, although we can expect that Republicans will try to make hay out of it in the general election.  By then, people won’t care – and the voters who will care would not vote Democratic anyway.

It’s bad enough that San Francisco – and everyone who lives here – got dragged into the mud with this story, just because the media won’t admit that the Clintons are history.  But for the Chronicle to pile on when it’s our hometown newspaper was embarrassing.  If the New York Times reported that voters in the Big Apple were out of touch with mainstream America, there would have been an outcry.  As residents of San Francisco, we deserve better from our local newspaper of record.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco.  He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Facing the end of both his term in the state assembly and as its Speaker, Fabian Núñez is pushing a series of “legislative reforms,” as reported in today’s LA Times. The problem is that these “reforms” will do little to produce actual improvements in governance – and if Núñez is interested in securing his “legacy” as the article suggests, he’s taking the wrong approach.

Núñez is trying to put three initiatives on the November ballot – a term limits extension that would only apply to legislators who are not in their final terms (so that Núñez himself won’t benefit); a ban on fundraising during budget negotiations – and a redistricting measure.

Núñez is teaming up with Yacht Party leader Mike Villines on all of these reform initiatives, including redistricting. The article does not detail the Núñez redistricting measure, but noted that he (rightly) objected to the Schwarzenegger plan’s possibility of weakening majority-minority districts – and that Núñez believes the best way to defeat Arnold’s redistricting plan is to provide his own alternative. The article also notes that Núñez has $5.1 million to spend on these accounts (assuming he doesn’t give in to the pressure to return that to the CDP).

But nowhere in Núñez’ legacy plan is there anything regarding the 2/3 rule for budget and tax votes in the Legislature, by far the most important reform that the Legislature needs. $5.1 million would provide a major boost to an effort to eliminate the 2/3 rule and restore sanity to the state budget process. Given the likelihood of a Yacht Party holdout on the budget this summer public support for a 2/3 elimination would be high this November.

Instead Núñez is wasting his time on less relevant issues. Term limits reform would be nice, but it’s not the state’s highest priority at the moment. Same with fundraising during budget talks.

Most importantly, the entire redistricting reform movement is a sham, built upon completely unproven assumptions and on the unstated but key desire to reduce the number of Democrats in Sacramento. More on that below.

The LA Times article repeats the usual spin of the redistricting reformers:

Reformers say districts with more evenly balanced populations of Republican and Democratic voters would create more competitive elections and encourage legislators to pursue compromise instead of partisanship.

Nowhere does the article discuss the critics of these reformers, so I guess I’ll have to do that myself.

For six years I lived in a state – Washington – that redistricts in exactly the way Arnold has proposed. Washington has been using this method to draw its districts since 1983. But the Washington legislature exhibits just as much partisan rancor as the California legislature. Republicans and Democrats rarely compromise in Olympia – instead they fight with each other just as often as they do in Sacramento.

Nor are elections particularly competitive in most Washington districts. Currently Democrats hold 2/3 majorities in the state legislature. Virtually all of Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma have long been Democratic strongholds, which has now been extended to all of King County. Very few Republicans now represent any part of the Puget Sound region.

This is because partisanship is NOT a product of legislative districts. It is instead a fact of American political life and has been ever since Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson formed the first political parties in 1792.

The notion that Republicans and Democrats are different because of non-competitive elections is absurd. The difference comes from very deeply held political beliefs. And the notion that the Republican Party in particular might become more centrist with redistricting reform is totally ignorant of the way that party has operated for the last 40 years. Since the conservative takeover of GOP institutions in the 1960s, moderate Republicanism has been dead in California. The only Republicans who survive primary elections are conservatives.

And it’s going to be very difficult to draw districts that would give Democrats a chance to defeat such wingnuts. This is the other colossal flaw of redistricting – Republicans and Democrats tend to live near each other. It is simply impossible to draw competitive districts in San Francisco, the East Bay, Los Angeles proper, southern Orange County, Bakersfield, or Temecula – without engaging in gerrymandering of a more dramatic sort than has ever been done by legislators themselves.

The only supporters of redistricting reform are those who believe California sends too many Democrats to the state legislature, and who believe that we can send more Republicans with “more competitive districts.” Realize that Republicans have 12% fewer registered voters in this state than Democrats, a gap that is widening. It is not possible to make all or even most districts “competitive.” California voters have made their choices and we should respect those choices.

Redistricting reform failed in 2005, and it will likely fail in 2008. If Núñez wants to use his $5.1 million warchest for something useful, for something to build a legacy around, he should pursue changing the 2/3 rule. This is by far the best year to do so, and he would have a state grateful to him were he to champion such a measure.

(Note: the Labor Notes Conference is a biennial gathering of activists seeking to build a more democratic and more effective labor movement.  It takes place in Detroit Mich.)

In the aftermath of the disruption and violence by SEIU at last weekend’s Labor Notes conference, there have been a flurry of analyses, finger-pointing, hindsight, and criticisms.  This issue is too important to drop…in recent days SEIU’s campaign against CNA/NNOC (California Nurses Assn/National Nurses Organizing Committee) has veered from harassment into violence-which has absolutely no place in the labor movement.

 

I think it’s important to listen to a few of the voices coming out of this melee with first-hand experience of the incident.  I’ll warn you that this has grown rather long, as I have found more voices it seemed important to include.  Note that two of the folks whose words I include are connected to CNA/NNOC.  The others are not.  

I think it is also important to say that clearly many of the SEIU folks bussed in had no intention to involve themselves in violence and as you will read below, quite likely, many had no idea what they were really there for.  Where I or my union have differences with SEIU, it is with the top leadership and a few of the staff, not with the rank and file members who are too often being sold out by their own union.  And it’s even fair to say that, like any big event where things happen in a hurry, the same event can look very different to different people and from different angles.  I have no doubt that some of the SEIU people who stayed back in the middle of the crowd experienced a peaceful, though boisterous demonstration.  I also have no doubt that those at the front line attempting to break into the banquet room committed a violent assault.  

First I want to focus on Bonnie Castillo, RN. Like most RNs, Bonnie is a not easily daunted-but even she was overwhelmed by the extreme behavior she witnessed:

“At every single healthcare workshop on Saturday, SEIU staff would rudely interrupt and heckle. By the end of the sessions, it was clear that SEIU’s inside team was overwhelmingly composed of professional staff thugs.

When the seven buses arrived at the evening banquet and people began pounding on the outside doors, it was all very surreal. I remember looking at our board members, our staff, and our RNs from all over the country. I first heard the word “bus” over the radio our security staff was using and got up to see what was going on. The next word was “move” and that’s exactly what happened in a matter of seconds.  

Once our board members were out I still thought somehow we might not all have to evacuate. Then I saw one of our security staff rushing towards me, saying “NO, Out!” I looked behind him and saw the doors shaking, the thugs yelling, drums and windows pounding, and we quickly ushered our last two tables out. I looked behind me and saw the hotel kitchen staff running as well.”

Labor Notes staff were equally baffled by the sheer aggression of SEIU. As a neutral platform for all organizations and activities that serve to promote and protect the working women and men of the world, Labor Notes employees should not find themselves thrust into the roles of referee or security guard when misguided zealots take advantage of, and ruin, the spirit of equality in a communal gathering. The people at Labor Notes were so affected by the unexpected belligerence that they issued the following statement:

“…debate [between two unions] must take place with respect and free from intimidation. Despite being welcomed to the conference earlier in the day-and given space to debate supporters of the CNA/NNOC about neutrality organizing agreements-SEIU staff and members shouted down speakers at workshops and panels throughout the event.

At our Saturday night banquet hundreds of SEIU protesters stormed into our conference and confronted our volunteers and supporters. In 29 years we have never had a group of protesters attack our conference or the brothers and sisters who attend it. Violence has no place within our labor movement, and we call on the national leadership of SEIU, including President Andy Stern, to repudiate it.”

http://www.labornotes.org/…

In response to the negative publicity they have received, SEIU organizers maintain that they did not incite the violence, pointing to the fact that among their busloads of members bombarding the Labor Notes conference there were many women, children, and retirees. To those that were there, however, the presence of such diverse and, one might say, vulnerable, elements of society is not evidence to support SEIU’s purported nonviolence. Instead, they are a shocking indictment of just how callously SEIU pursues the scent of blood.

Interestingly, while the initial SEIU press release mentioned only a peaceful domonstration, that position seems to be gradually “evolving”.  Here’s an excerpt from the BNA Daily Labor Report (an e-mailed newsletter of labor affairs)

SEIU, however, issued a statement April 14 contending that its members, led by hospital workers from Ohio, led a peaceful protest to voice their disapproval of CNA’s “anti-union campaign in Ohio.”

SEIU spokeswoman Joyce Moscato told BNA April 14 that there was some pushing and shoving as SEIU members tried to get into the banquet and other conference attendees tried to keep them out, but added, “it didn’t last long.” She acknowledged that several people got hurt, including some SEIU members, but added that it was “not intentional.” She also confirmed that an SEIU member died from a heart attack as he was boarding the bus after the incident.

Next some thoughts from Michelle Mahon.  Michelle is a RN in Ohio who works as a nurse legal consultant and on a “lost time” basis for CNA/NNOC.  She both describes what she saw in Ohio and offers some thoughts on the broader context:

Some from SEIU claim that the intent was a peaceful demonstration and for most this may in fact be true.  SEIU staffers have claimed that they were attacked by beefed up security and CNA/NNOC sympathizers as the inciting event that turned the demonstration to violence. As an eyewitness, I can tell you this is not the case.  However, even if we give SEIU the benefit of the doubt we must examine their behavior and how it could lead to such a response.  

Imagine that you are standing witness to a mob of people yelling, screaming, carrying large sticks and pounding violently against doors demanding entry.  Now imagine them suddenly rushing toward you by the hundreds.  How would you respond? Well documented psychology states you will respond in one of two ways- fight or flight.  This response is part of every person’s human programming so deep within our nervous system that often one cannot control it.  Individual previous personal experiences will cause great variability to the threshold of tolerance before this response sets in. I am certain the responses of a Vietnam vet, abused woman, immigrant who has had to flee from a war torn country and others that have traumatic incidents in their past might vary greatly from others.  Factor those types of psychological responses with others and you can see the danger of these intimidation tactics.  While SEIU may believe they can toe the line between intimidation and violence they are not in control of the situation when they confront society.

Dearborn is not an isolated incident of collective intimidation as a tactic employed by SEIU.  In Springfield, Ohio as I participated in leafleting hospital workers to expose a rushed and unfair election between SEIU & CHP.  I witnessed the more common variety of SEIU thuggery.  Almost immediately upon my arrival I found myself surrounded by SEIU staff organizers, approximately 10, mostly men. They surrounded me and two other women yelling obscenities standing within inches of us.  SEIU followed us around town and followed us into stores continuing to engage in aggressive behavior that fell just short of assault.  This continued for days and was obviously planned, coordinated intimidation.  As we walked to our cars on the icy streets in a blizzard they used their vehicles to “push” us off the road.  A dangerous move, especially considering the road conditions, that could have had unforeseen and unintended consequences had one of us slipped or the car skid on the ice.  Again, SEIU forgets that they do not have control of the situation.

Many who have had interactions with SEIU staff can repeat similar experiences on more than one occasion.  In fact, it seems that whenever SEIU engages CNA/NNOC this is their approach.  The LA Times article that tells of a CNA organizer slapping someone from SEIU leaves out the fact that she was encircled by many men who were yelling at her and preventing her from walking away. Her response was the natural one of fight or flight.  

The consistency of this aggression demonstrates that the response it elicits is intended and taught to the staff of SEIU.  Considering that the primary target on most occasions is CNA/NNOC an organization primarily comprised of women I do not believe their choice of tactics is a coincidence.  

Glenn Greenwald, an attorney who has studied collective acts of intimidation in the context of the radical right states ” it is not only those who engage in the tactics themselves who bear responsibility for the consequences, but also those who offer coldly bureaucratic indifference towards these tactics, or even an implicit defense of them”.  It is important to recognize SEIU behavior as more than a tactic.  Collective intimidation is dangerous and can illicit unforeseeable responses.  SEIU’s strategic aggression is in fact widespread abuse that should not be tolerated in our society.  

As Michael Carano (a blogger and labor activist from Ohio) writes,

“it should be said, by some of the comments heard from attendees, it appears many of the SEIU members brought into disrupt the conference may have been unwitting participants to what was planned for them. More news will be forthcoming, I am sure. If so, one must wonder at what level this trickery descends through the ranks to use their members in such a way.”

http://www.progressohio.org/…

The next words are those of Ken Paff, a Teamster and longtime activist for union democracy attending the Labor Notes conference, who has, sadly, seen this kind of radical violence before, when dealing with the Teamster ‘BLAST’ goon squad in the 1980s. For Paff, the SEIU invasion of Labor Notes was an unwelcome throwback to a dark era in labor history.  This is quoted from a private e-mail from him, forwarded to me.

“My reports below are based on hearing from careful observers on the spot; where they conflict with press releases, consider the source. At least 3 buses of SEIU officials and members arrived, either all or mostly from 1199 Ohio. Some SEIU reps and organizers were recognized by participants. A few in the advance line, at the point of confrontation, wore bandana masks to avoid ID or pictures, but in at least one case, an LN participant pulled the mask off the SEIU official.  

They arrived at exterior glass hotel doors near the banquet hall. They beat on the glass and chanted while hotel staff eyed them from inside, a bit removed from Labor Notes participants, who were in the banquet room or still streaming into it.

One of their inside people slipped past the hotel staff and opened the door from the inside, and they flooded in.

The delay there gave some participants time to organize a thin line of defense across the three sets of double doors leading into the banquet hall. The doors were closed and volunteer participants stood guard at them, some with locked arms.  

The advance line of SEIU staffers led the chanting group forward and pushed and punched and tried to break in, and almost did. My friend Dan Campbell had his glasses broken from a glancing punch.

It was led by officials, but many behind them were rank and file members who had been “mobilized.” A friend talked to some of them and found out they didn’t know that they were brought to invade a national (and international) labor event. One said they were told it was a meeting of union busters. A few had children with them, so they were hardly prepared for a confrontation.

Their press release was headed ‘SEIU Members Stand Up for the Future of the Labor Movement.’ Doesn’t seem like a future that I’m interested in. I saw it in the past, and would like to keep it there.”

Finally, I will quote this morning’s statement on the events as issued by AFL-CIO president John Sweeney:

Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

On Developments in the SEIU-CNA Dispute

April 15, 2008

For several weeks I have been working to bring the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and the California Nurses Association/NNOC (CNA) together to resolve their escalating dispute over representation of nurses.  Unfortunately, the deplorable events of the weekend set back the progress we hoped to make.  

There is no justification – none – for the violent attack orchestrated by SEIU at the Labor Notes conference in Detroit.  While there may well be multiple sides to any dispute, violence in any form is reprehensible.  Violence in attacking freedom of speech must be strongly condemned.  Any attempt to deny the right of free speech threatens the foundation of our movement and the future of working people.

No union should understand the corrosive effect of violence better than SEIU, which was founded by courageous janitors in the face of employer violence in the 1920s and 1930s.  I call on the leaders of SEIU to condemn what happened in Detroit.    

Likewise, I call on the leaders of SEIU to withdraw their recent appeal to their local unions across the country to withhold dues from AFL-CIO state federations and central labor councils as a pressure tactic in their dispute with CNA.  These organizations are not involved in the controversy in any way, and withholding resources at a time when we face the greatest political challenges in our history is a damaging affront to the determined, united efforts of the entire labor movement.  

It is time for the escalation to stop.  Our responsibilities as leaders demand that we rise above our differences and disagreements for the greater good.  Last week the leaders of CNA agreed to meet with SEIU to discuss these issues.  

Today I am renewing the call for both parties to come together and resolve the issues that divide them.

I thought the above would end the piece, but just minutes ago I received this weeks issue of “Week in Review” by Bill Onasch.  Bill is a respected blogger and labor activist who publishes a weekly e-newsletter on labor issues.  Here are his thoughts – and that really will be the last of it!

Stern Crosses the Line

The first sign of trouble I saw, as I was finishing my salad, was the frantic signal from the waiter captain to the waitpersons to stop serving and go to the kitchen. The prudence of this surprising action soon became apparent. A woman rushed up to the vacant podium and started denouncing CNA “union busters.” She was promptly removed but then we could hear great commotion outside the doors to the Grand Ballroom.

At least two bus loads-some say more-of SEIU staffers were determined to invade the banquet and take it over. Some wore masks. Many wielded anti-CNA picket signs. Dianne Feeley, a retired UAW officer from an Axle local now on strike, who I have known for more years than either of us would care to admit, was injured in the scuffling as the good guys and gals kept the barbarians out of the hall. Eventually, after hotel security called the cops, the thugs retreated shouting “we’ll be back.”

Perhaps not coincidently, the windows of Ellis Boal’s car were also smashed about the same time. Boal, a labor attorney currently advising the Freightliner Five, has earned the wrath of many union bureaucrats as well as bosses. It’s hard to believe his car damage was a random act of vandalism.

Andy Stern was not present. But nothing on this scale in SEIU gets done without his approval, if not suggestion. Violent intimidation is, of course, not unknown in the American labor movement. Usually this has been the result of mob infiltration in the unions, sometimes even using murder as a way of settling disputes, as we have seen in the past in the Teamsters, ILA, and Mine Workers.

SEIU is not mobbed up. Stern is a one-time campus radical who discovered that being a union bureaucrat could be a rewarding career. Setting the pace in degeneration of the bureaucracy he has already borrowed some time honored practices of gangster unions such as sweetheart contracts and raiding legitimate unions on strike. Now he has taken a tentative step in using the union staff to physically attack challengers within his union and rival unions–and not very concerned about any collateral damage.

The entire labor movement should denounce this reintroduction of gangster methods and take whatever steps are needed to stop it cold now.

http://click.icptrack.com/…