Attorneys representing the 150,000 California healthcare workers represented by SEIU-UHW against Sal Rosselli and NUHW did such a great job laying a solid foundation for our case that it has the lawyers for Rosselli and the 27 other alleged conspirators scrambling for cover. It seems like the only highlight of the day for them is 12:59 pm, when the trial ends for the day. Earlier this week, I overheard a conversation in the hallway where one of their staffers mentioned how the plaintiff’s allotted time was running short, while Rosselli, Borsos and others had over three hundred more minutes than us (each side was given 18 hours to put on their case). As of today however, only ninety minutes separate the two sides, and they still have over twenty more defendants to take the stand in their defense. Add to that, an array of “character witnesses” made up of politicians whose campaigns have at one time or another benefited from Sal and company. 😉
Sal In The Hot Seat
If Rosselli took comfort in his lawyer’s soft and cozy direct examination, Mr. Kohlman gave him a rude awakening. With the very first question he began to grill the witness.
Yesterday, when asked why contract extensions at several nursing homes were canceled just days before the trusteeship, he replied that he had no knowledge that defendant Vellardita did that. He went on to acknowledge that the trustee had the legal authority to access the union’s offices and assets in order to service the members. He also acknowledged the duties and responsibilities he had to uphold the constitutions of UHW and SEIU. Among those duties were not just to comply with the decision of the International Executive Board, but to also ensure an orderly transition of authority to the trustees. He failed in both these instances. From the stand he admitted that while he was aware of the mob attacks on the offices in Alameda and LA, and that they were led by members of his senior staff, he did nothing. He also admitted that he was aware that members and staff were squatting overnight at UHW offices throughout the state and that they had chained and padlocked the doors shut (fire hazard), but he did nothing. And that he knew those inside were given the deed to the offices and expenses for these “sleepovers” were paid by our dues monies, he still did nothing. Nothing was more disturbing to hear than when he was asked if it was inappropriate for union officers or employees to keep our personal information in databases outside of our union, and he said “…hmm, I’m not sure about that.”
Go Gary Go!
Once again today , Kohlman delivered. Yesterday Rosselli testified that he knew what was going on, and today he couldn’t seem to recall much – he can’t remember meetings, memos, lists, phone calls, people, places or things. He wasn’t sure if he got a memo from Laura Kurrie instructing senior staff on talking points for the bogus outside fund they put $3 million of our money into (the PEF) in case the International asked. He wasn’t sure what John Borsos would tell a crowd of hand-picked members in a January 24, 2009 mega meeting. Heck, he couldn’t recall how the members at those meetings were selected to attend (they were assessed as loyal to him and most receptive to his message.) He can’t recall who ordered the UHW data base to be scrambled. He can’t recall what happened at a December 6, 2009 meeting he attended where work plans for creating a new union were being worked out. He can’t recall if his special assistant Dan Martin set up an office in his home with a computer system that could access the UHW mainframe without the IT department even knowing.
He can’t recall receiving an e-mail with an attachment that had a membership list of over 20,000 Kaiser workers, but remembers not opening it. He can’t recall if he read a letter to SEIU President Andy Stern trying to reach out and resolve differences. Clearly, this witness was very uncomfortable today; he fidgeted in his chair and coughed after every question as if trying to buy time to find some answer.
“Stay The F*** Out!”
When he first approached the stand, former union rep from the hospital division, Andy Reid, looked like a boy scout from a time long gone by. He spoke of the ideals and passion that brought him to UHW, collaborative efforts, and how the union is bigger than any one person. But that didn’t last long. When confronted with a memo he received from Barbara Lewis telling him to instruct stewards to tell new incoming staff to “Get the F*** out!” his demons just had to come out. In a loud voice for the judge, jury and all to hear, he blurted out “They should get the F*** out of my hospital!!!” He then explained how he recruited followers to sleep at the San Jose office to resist the trusteeship.
NUHW Witness Verifies Key SEIU Testimony
She must have thought she was being slick or just plain cute, but Beverly Griffith only ended up corroborating a key element of the SEIU case. The former steward from Alta Bates in Oakland and as of today, an NUHW staff member, testified how she “led” the mob of 50-60 rioters that attacked the Alameda SEIU office on January 20, 2009. When they were greeted at the door by the security guard, she told them “We’re coming in!” Then she and the others started to push their way in. She acknowledged the guard being shoved to the ground as the mob made its way in, “I just jumped over him” Griffith told the jury. She then began to “have conversations” with the workers, ordering them to “Go back to Washington D.C. (even though most were not from D.C.), you opened a Pandora’s box and it will not close!” As Rasheda Anthony told last week how defendant Goldstein tried to snatch confidential documents out of her hand, and defendant Krystal shoved her into a desk, Griffith, testified that they were present at the altercation. She also told the jury how this was not the first time she was violent at union activities.
…good job, rudi…keep it up…
…good job, rudy…keep it up…
Hi Rudy- great job!
I will comment about your assessment on Sal Rosselli, you write: “Yesterday, when asked why contract extensions at several nursing homes were canceled just days before the trusteeship, he replied that he had no knowledge that defendant Vellardita did that. He went on to acknowledge that the trustee had the legal authority to access the union’s offices and assets in order to service the members. He also acknowledged the duties and responsibilities he had to uphold the constitutions of UHW and SEIU. Among those duties were not just to comply with the decision of the International Executive Board, but to also ensure an orderly transition of authority to the trustees. He failed in both these instances. From the stand he admitted that while he was aware of the mob attacks on the offices in Alameda and LA, and that they were led by members of his senior staff, he did nothing. He also admitted that he was aware that members and staff were squatting overnight at UHW offices throughout the state and that they had chained and padlocked the doors shut (fire hazard), but he did nothing. And that he knew those inside were given the deed to the offices and expenses for these “sleepovers” were paid by our dues monies, he still did nothing. Nothing was more disturbing to hear than when he was asked if it was inappropriate for union officers or employees to keep our personal information in databases outside of our union, and he said “…hmm, I’m not sure about that.”Sal Rosselli and his followers (NUHW) claim to be member-driven and transparant. NUHW often gets their “converts” by telling them that SEIU “abandoned” you, and then, because they have had the “boxes and boxes” of UHW records and property, they go into facilities with an emotional plea (not unlike the practice of cult leaders) and out-right lie to healthcare workers to get them to join their fight against SEIU. The most damning evidence shown in this trial, in my opinion, is Sal Rosselli testifying that he would never harm members (trial evidence on day 8) and claiming he knew nothing about the actions of his partners-in-crime (trial evidence days 8 and 9.) What a crock of crap!
For those NUHW faithful, I want to point out the definition of “abandon(ment)” please. It’s worth a re-fresher since some have obviously forgotten:
abandon
1a: to give up the control or infuence of another person or agent b. to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in (abandon property)
2: to withdraw from often in the face of danger or encroachment (abandon ship)
3: to withdraw protection, support, or help from (he abandoned his family)
5a: to cease from maintaining, practicing, or using (abandoned their native language) b. to cease intending or attempting to perform (abandoned the escape) synonyms: Desert, Forsake
Really, Defendants, who abandoned who? The former leadership of UHW (now NUHW) terminated contract extensions for dues paying members, just one of the many, many malicious acts carried out against UHW members as well as non-member workers hoping to get a union.
I work at Kaiser Vallejo, this is my 16th year. I have been a shop steward for at least the past 14 yrs. There is not a little testimony concerning the Defendants activities in 2007 but it has been brought out that in 2007 the union leadership began to plan their exodus. My experience, as a shop steward, has shown that beginning in 2007 and peaking in the latter half of 2008, my union leaders abandoned their members at Kaiser Vallejo. We couldn’t get phone calls returned, support from union staff, assistance with grievances at higher levels, little to nothing from them except when they wanted us to try to get members to stop their COPE deductions or sign a petition to decertify the union.
I have nothing to gain in speaking the truth and supporting SEIU-UHW. I’m a Kaiser employee and I’m with Kaiser for the long haul. I have no hopes in becoming a Manager nor a Union Employee. I just don’t like being lied to, stole from, manipulated, or ignored when I was busting my butt trying to represent as a shop steward and loyal union member.
“SEIU scab staff, Richard Rubio-Bowley (650 225 2726), is living the celebrity dream! Today, Richard, always the social climber within the union whose title outshone his ability years ago, rolled up with an entourage of 3 body guards in dark sunglasses to escort him into a nursing home of approximately 50 workers.
He’d already tried to bar the former UHW rep from entering the facility. Given that she’s 24 and weighs 120 lbs. soaking wet, one could see the need for 3 thuggish body guards. When the same rep tried to enter the break area and ask for a fair debate about the merits of SEIU vs. NUHW, he said that he’d be right outside to do that. After waiting for 30 minutes, naively thinking that any word a scab says is not a lie, this rep walked in to discover that Richard was having the meeting he really wanted: alone, behind closed doors with the boss.
Almost forgot that after the SEIU Neanderthal body guard wouldn’t let this rep into the break area, Richard, realizing the absurdity of the measures he’s taking against unwanted paparazzi, stated that the only reason for his “Krew” was that he was getting harassing phone calls.”
Well I have been a shop steward for 13 years and I have been able to represent many members with the most honesty and respect, I have learn to debate as equal against management and learn that when union leaders collude with your employer the workers lose. It is particularly interesting that you do not ask the current trustees to be acountable for the past year union dues of about 90 million dollars and there is no way or place where they have shown their monetary activities. Now union dues pay for two trustees that make close to half million dollars a year and members did not cast a single vote for them. They have expent so much money to promote stupid people to scare workers and intimidate the opposition at the expenses of workers dues. Last year not a single new worker was organized to UHW, what a pathetic organizing result. They want to keep workers silent in order to rip them off. If UHW wins there will be no representation and the contract that was bargained by honest unnion leaders is the one that now UHW trustees tell people that they made happen and congratulate themselves in the next increase. If we let these thugs raing workers will see that their voice, their vote and their democracy will be a thing of the past. It is tome to dump these money hungry idiots and fire them! And u union rudy must open your eyes and do not bow to your masters, you finger puppet.
SEIU vs. NUHW, Week One: Plaintiffs Make Case, Without Evidence
Tuesday
March 30
2:21 pm In civil trial against former members, SEIU lowers damage claims
By Carl Finamore
SAN FRANCISCO-The quiet decorum of a court room is a far cry from a union hall. But in San Francisco, it is precisely in a federal court where a crucial and unprecedented debate-which may fundamentally alter how much democratic control members exercise over local union chapters-is taking place.
As I wrote here a few weeks ago, the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has brought a $25-million lawsuit against former elected officers, staff and organizers of its third-largest national unit, the 150,000 member United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary responsibilities under both national and state laws and for violations of the SEIU constitution.
The 26 defendants are currently supporters of a new union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) which is also being sued. Last week, the first week of the trial, both sides presented opening statements and SEIU then began presenting their testimony. This week, plaintiffs will rest their case and the 26 defendants will get their chance in front of a nine-person jury.
SEIU claims the defendants “sabotaged our union, misused our dues money, and deliberately and directly harmed members.”
Is it unlawful for locally elected union leaders to vigorously defend their members even when in sharp conflict with the international union? This is the real issue posed. Allegations of fiduciary malfeasance only shroud widely differing concepts of union democracy. In that sense, this is fundamentally a political trial and not about misappropriation of funds.
It all started a few years ago, when UHW expressed disagreement with the international union’s proposal to unilaterally remove 65,000 long-term healthcare workers from the local without the approval of these affected workers.
Opposition began to fester because SEIU President Andy Stern sought to transfer these UHW members into a local headed by his close ally, Tyrone Freeman, who was widely thought to be corrupt and ineffective at improving workers’ wages and benefits. (Freeman is now under criminal investigation by federal authorities and has been removed from office.)
Nonetheless, SEIU international officers ultimately pushed through their proposal by taking over the local and eliminating the opposition. The local UHW constitution was suspended, and all elected officers removed.
It was actively opposing these actions of the international, the defendants claim, that they are guilty of and nothing more.
If SEIU is successful in inflicting these incredibly onerous financial damages on local union officials, it will obviously have an enormously chilling effect on future local union deliberations. A multi-million lawsuit is enough to make even the strongest local leader a little jittery about taking on their international officials.
Corporate model vs democracy
Countering arguments made by SEIU attorneys in their March 22 opening statement to the jury, defense counsel Dan Siegel shot back by asserting that “A local union is not the same as a corporate branch of Bank of America.”
He is correct. In the corporate world, headquarters dictates to the branches so that the product retains uniformity from top to bottom. Everyone toes the line and everything is the same, from the size of each burger to the amount of ketchup splattered on each bun.
But unions deal with people, not products or brands. Each local union affiliated with a national union also retains its own democratically-approved bylaws. Each local, as a result, is constitutionally responsible for defending the interests of its respective members who elect and pay salaries of local officers. Each local is, therefore, a distinct unit of the larger national organization, much like states operate within a federal structure.
“This is a case unique in U.S. history,” Siegel told me in an interview. “An international union brought a lawsuit against union activists based upon actions they took as elected leaders of their local.”
Defendants openly acknowledge that the UHW 100-member executive board did in fact vote, often unanimously, to devote local resources against threats by the International union to shift long-term healthcare workers out of their local.
Later, as the dispute escalated, the fight melded into opposing attempts by the international union to impose the trusteeship or direct control over the local.
SEIU loses ground
However, in a stunning development, SEIU attorneys were actually forced to admit in court, under direct questioning from U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, that none of this was illegal. The judge also admonished these same attorneys while the jury was out of the courtroom that “You are being too greedy!” He was referring to the outlandish damage claims against the defendants.
The plaintiffs were forced to concede ground. In an attempt to save face, they dropped many of their accusations and substantially lowered their damage claims from $25 million to around $5 million-all in just the first week of trial.
They now allege, with growing difficulty, that the prolonged fight against trusteeship was all a big charade to cover up the real motives of the defendants, which were to misappropriate funds and resources to build a new union.
But absolutely no evidence has been produced by SEIU lawyers that points to any stolen property or financial irregularities and, as Siegel emphasized in his opening, “There is absolutely no evidence that any of the 26 defendants spent one nickel of UHW money to form the new union, National Union of Healthcare Workers [NUHW].”
Defense attorneys insist that all 26 worked legitimately within UHW democratic structures to fight the trusteeship and, in fact, building the new union did not begin, they argue, until after the defendants resigned from UHW.
For example, they cite a January 26, 2009 letter, on the eve of trusteeship, from then-UHW president Sal Rosselli and the entire executive board that indicates genuine intentions to remain within the union. Rosselli’s letter urges Andy Stern to once again consider allowing a vote by the 65,000 UHW long-term healthcare workers on whether they wanted to remain in UHW or whether they wanted to join a new separate SEIU home care unit as the international union insisted.
Rosselli and the executive board pledged to remain inside UHW and abide by the outcome of the membership vote regardless of its outcome. Stern rejected this proposal and imposed trusteeship the very next day, on January 27. Rosselli and the executive board were immediately suspended from office.
Even more compelling evidence came from one of the plaintiffs’ main witnesses who corroborated critical defense arguments.
SEIU witness Leon Chow, an administrative vice president of UHW and head of their San Francisco office during the time in question, was a leading supporter of the local’s fight against trusteeship. He now has been rehired by SEIU into his former UHW leadership position after apparently changing his mind.
Nonetheless, Chow testified under cross examination that he never heard about forming the new union, NUHW, until January 28, 2009, one day after the international took control of UHW. This obviously refutes claims that plans to build NUHW occurred over an extended period and that UHW funds and resources were used to build the new union.
Chow also testified under cross examination that he never heard of any plans to disrupt the functioning of the local in anticipation of the international taking over the local and that he believed that all the actions by UHW leaders prior to the trusteeship were legal, lawful and in the interests of the membership, the sole purpose being to resist a takeover of their union.
Slander outside the courtroom
Other inflammatory SEIU charges were never even mentioned in the first week of trial. Despite widely-circulated SEIU slander that the defendants were thieves and criminals, absolutely no accusations have been made in court that any of the 26 personally benefited from allegations of financial irregularities.
Yet SEIU continues to spread scandalous rumors in what critics call a “character assassination campaign.” Rosselli, now a leader of NUHW, tells of being warmly embraced at work sites by surprised UHW members because “we heard you all were going to jail on March 22.”
This is not the usual international union trusteeship displacing corrupt local officials and SEIU has not the audacity to make such claims in open court. On the contrary, the underlying issue of the trial is to punish those who democratically and lawfully utilized UHW resources to strenuously oppose policies of their international officers and who, subsequently, exercised their legal right to form a new union.
The lawsuit sends a threatening message throughout the union but, in particular, to the 700,000 members in California, where SEIU feels most vulnerable to the example of 26 UHW leaders who resisted bureaucratic intervention into their local union.
It is said that clarity emerges when an idea is challenged and submitted to critical examination. We shall see that theory tested after the next two weeks of trial when the jury renders its verdict, due around April 9.
But we can say with confidence that the issues being argued by plaintiffs’ high-priced attorneys would have been better served if SEIU president Andy Stern had allowed an organized democratic discussion and debate among the 65,000 long-term healthcare workers of UHW. Instead, all the discussion has been compressed into one small courtroom, where 26 dedicated union activists await their fate.
Finamore attended each court session during the first week and expects to continue to monitor this immensely important trial.
Posted by Carl Finamore