For SEIU, It’s Still About Rules Being Broken:
When the trial started two weeks ago, it was clearly stated what this was all about. It was about rules, the dangers of thinking you can be above them, and the consequences for then refusing to follow them. In his opening arguments, Gary Kholman, attorney for the 150,000 members that were abandoned by Rosselli and his co-defendants, told the jury that he will lay out evidence that showed how the defendants, in reaction to “constitutional mandates” placed upon them by the international, began to plot and put into motion a set of premeditated actions in response. The sole purpose of these actions by the defendants was to pilfer the union’s treasury, hijack the local’s valuable information network, and ultimately steal members away and put them into a new organization with shady beginnings. In the two weeks that followed those opening statements by Mr. Kholman, witness after witness after witness came forward to testify. They told how they were recruited to either lie to and cheat members out of due representation, or how they were intimidated into cooperation. Mountains of documents, many from the defendants’ own hands, were put into evidence. We read secret e-mails, task lists, minutes and notes of meetings, correspondence, and watched videos that showed the evolution of this “great plan” of these 26 OUTSIDERS that sought to destroy our union of over eighty years.
In his closing arguments today, Kholman again reminded the jury what this has always been about rules and consequences. These defendants always had three honorable options before them;
– Accept the rules and abide by them
– Work within the system to change the rules
– Leave the organization
Instead, they chose a fourth, dishonorable option, to defy the rules and breach the rules that govern our union. The means they used to reach that end were equally dishonorable! Taking members’ dues monies off the books into a secret slush fund, pirating our confidential information into a shadow database, and creating secret groups that held clandestine meetings. Appalling as that is, the worst offense they made against us was to lie to us and then recruit us as pawns in their sinister scheme.
In society, and the organizations within them, rules are what bind us together and keep us from falling into chaos. Regardless how one felt about the 2000 Bush v Gore election drama, it was because rules were in place that an “orderly transition” occurred from one president to the next. Hard as it may have been for Gore to accept the result, can you imagine what shambles our democracy would be put into if he had decided to not accept or abide by it and instead conspired to have the “blue states” secede? That’s what Rosselli and the others are trying to do.
For NUHW, It’s Still About Distraction and Distortion:
Two weeks ago Dan Siegel, attorney for Rosselli and his co-defendants, chose to talk about what this trial was NOT about. He wanted to talk about Andy Stern, his salary and a book he wrote. He wanted to preach about democracy and tyranny. He told us how his clients’ actions were “motivated by patient care.” These attempts to distract the jury only got him stiff admonishments from the judge who then instructed him to follow the rules. Throughout the trial, he offered no evidence to refute our claims against his clients…only spin. He put forth witnesses that proudly verified claims of violent actions, then insinuated the victims were to blame. On the stand, his clients broke down, and Rosselli himself became as nervous as a “sinner in church!”
In his closing arguments today, Siegel offered nothing new…only spin. He spoke about gazing at the stars and pondered the horoscope signs they formed. He dipped his feet into various conspiracy theories like the government’s involvement in 9-11 and the CIA’s role in the Kennedy assassination. From this, he gathered that SEIU our union of over eighty years, is like Iran. He defended his clients’ obstructive actions as mere “expression,” saying they cannot be held accountable for them, but then referred to them as “terrible conspirators.” Mr. Siegel obviously has never stepped foot in any of our facilities, this much was evident when he had the nerve to ask “Did anything horrible really happen?” The answer to that Mr. Siegel, YES!!! Ask any of the 150,000 members your clients left behind.
…your voice will help get the word out…thanx…
Ok Union Rat
Here is the document juros received after SEIU-UHW pathetic-money sucking lawyers wanted to retrive. Enjoy
So, a little “ticking time bomb” (as the plaintiffs like to say) went to the jury room, to be discovered by the jury as they consider whether to award damages to SEIU.
What was the document? It was our old friend the implosion memo, from way back in June 2008!
——-
From: Bill Ragen
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 09:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Thomas Debruin; Stephen Lerner; Denise Poloyac; Kirk Adams; Edgar N. James
Subject: a few thoughts about UHW
Post-convention UHW work
A few thoughts
* Trusteeship would be difficult – it’s like Iraq, easy and then to get in and then a slog
* Implosion would be a better outcome but what will it take?
* Loss of LTC means half the local will be in the south, where there are pockets of dissatisfaction
* Local elections are early next year
* Some key senior staff may want to get out of a suicide mission
Issues that will need our attention after the convention include:
Legal
* Education Fund (2 lawsuits)
* DFR’s – Possible filing at Kaiser Sunset, elsewhere
Long Term Care jurisdiction
Internal
* complaints about UHW relationship with vendor It’s in the Bag
* Kaiser SF stewards – internal appeal and possible DOL filing their dismissal by UHW
Members that have publicly spoken out, organized:
* Kaiser: Sunset, Woodland Hills, Panorama City
* California Hospital – CHW
* Independents: Good Samaritan, Cedars Sinai, Motion Picture
* Christy Brooks – homecare worker in Northern CA (blogger)
UHW Staff
* Going to work for other locals (possible 2 in LA)
Member outreach
* Information about decisions of the convention
Open Contracts
* Nursing Homes – 14,000 (9,000 in UHW)
* Hospitals – about 65,000
Issues to decide
Goals before, after LTC hearing
* Follow up with legal cases (and plaintiffs)
* Response to member complaints (It’s in the Bag, DFR’s)
* Follow up with members who have taken a public stance
* Communications strategy
* How do we let members know what was decided at the convention
* Do we want to build on the e-mails and other communications from workers, exposing UHW’s lack of attention to members’ concerns
* Other locals – if this debate continues, it needs to be between UHW and the rest of the division about decisions democratically made at the convention) – and not portrayed as a power struggle between UHW and the International
* Staffing
* Field
* Communication
* Legal
* Overlap with CNA work
* Shoring up CA Public Services locals that will receive mischief from UHW
Bill Ragen
Service Employees International Union
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
——
Perez rests!
Posted by Perez Stern at 12:10 PM
Labels: andystern., cassgualvez, daveregan, edgarjames, eliseomedina, garykohlman, georgeharris, halruddick, jerrybullock, lawsuit, lawyers, leonchow, lisagude, rashidaanthony, sacramento, trial, trusteeship
BREAKING: SEIU Wins $1.5 Million Verdict in Trial Against NUHW
by Randy Shaw‚ Apr. 09‚ 2010
0diggsdig
The jury has just awarded over $1.5 million to SEIU in its civil lawsuit against NUHW and 25 of its leaders. Twelve of these leaders won defense verdicts against SEIU. The largest award was $724,000 against NUHW, and awarded similar awards against most of its leaders in amounts ranging from $74,000-$30,000. The jury awarded the bulk of the damages because it believed the former SEIU-UHW leadership team was not doing its job in the month prior to SEIU’s placing the local in trusteeship; the jury awarded no money in response to SEIU’s claims of conspiracy, or stolen or misappropriated funds. The jury verdict is far less than the $25 million SEIU sought in the action, and reflects the jury’s conclusion that defendants should refund their January 2009 salaries, and also reimburse SEIU for directing staff to spend the month resisting trusteeship and working to form NUHW rather than on their SEIU activities.
SEIU’s trial against NUHW is now over, and the spinning of the verdict’s meaning soon begins. While SEIU will argue that the jury vindicates the union’s investing millions of dollars in time and money on the case, the trial achieved none of SEIU’s major goals.
The Lawsuit’s Goals
SEIU’s civil lawsuit against NUHW and 25 former SEIU-UHW staffers had four goals. The first three were to deplete NUHW resources by forcing its leaders to spend time and money defending themselves, send a message to hospital and home care workers facing elections that NUHW cannot not be trusted, and turn the Rosselli leadership team into a cautionary example for other SEIU locals that are considering publicly questioning President Stern’s agenda. None of these goals were achieved by the verdict.
First, NUHW has far more organizing resources today than at any point since the trusteeship began. NUHW’s organizing was not impeded by the trial. Second, the verdicts say nothing about workers not being able to trust NUHW. To the contrary, the verdicts punished former SEIU-UHW leaders for providing too much loyalty to members. Had NUHW leaders gone along with the transfer of home health care workers out of the local without a vote, the trusteeship would not have been imposed and many would not have jury awards against them today.
Significantly, Sal Rosselli, long described by SEIU as the leader who single-handedly pushed SEIU-UHW over the edge, did not get an award much larger against him than the others (the award against Rosselli was $70,600, Borsos, Lewis, Martin was $66,600, Goldstein $73,850, with Cornejo and others at $36,600. Paul Kumar won a defense verdict). Third, as for the lawsuit deterring internal SEIU criticism, since the lawsuit began two major SEIU locals — 888 in
Boston and 1021 in the San Francisco Bay Area — have elected reform slates.
The fourth reason for the lawsuit, perhaps the strongest of all, was personal. SEIU leaders deeply resented the former SEIU-UHW leadership team’s argument that they were more committed to empowering workers, and won stronger contracts, than the Stern administration. That’s why SEIU primarily seeks to undermine its rival through personal attacks against NUHW leaders like Sal Rosselli, Barbara Lewis, and John Borsos, and why UHW Trustee Dave Regan told me that his goal was to make sure that those who left SEIU to form NUHW “never again work in the labor movement.”
But this verdict will not cause any NUHW leaders to leave the labor movement. And I think these verdicts could well elevate the status of these leaders as principled labor organizers who were willing to put their jobs and incomes on the line rather than betray their members.
Who Benefits? Because the national media and California newspapers ignored the trial, SEIU got no public relations boost from the proceedings. And the trial did nothing to bolster SEIU’s support from other unions or labor activists; in fact, anger over SEIU’s spending millions of dollars to attack another union reaffirmed its increasingly outcast status in the labor movement.
It’s also worth noting that SEIU argued at trial that even if its international staff were engaged in openly criminal conduct, that this would not allow the leadership of its locals to attempt to move workers to another international union.
Judge Alsup appeared incredulous at hearing SEIU’s perspective (spoken outside the jury’s presence), and this position is hardly likely to boost SEIU as a symbol of union democracy. SEIU’s litigation strategy also exposes the union’s mistaken assumption that it could wage war in California against NUHW, launch a nationwide campaign of raids against former ally, UNITE HERE, and also implement its political agenda around immigration reform and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
When I asked SEIU Executive Vice-President Eliseo Medina in a conference call soon after the trusteeship was imposed how he could both be the trustee for SEIU-UHW and lead the union’s fight for immigration reform, he replied that it would be no problem but he would probably get more grey hairs. But after Medina declared this week that “ICE field officers have been acting like cowboys, more interested in adding scalps to their belts than doing their jobs targeting criminals and abusive employers,” it is hard not to conclude that Medina’s California responsibilities distracted him from addressing Obama Administration immigration failures much earlier.
Will the trial outcome make it easier for SEIU to convince workers that their rival union is “corrupt” and not worthy of support? It could well have the opposite impact. Consider that SEIU has been arguing for the past year that Sal Rosselli “stole” $3 million from members, but then excluded this allegation from its lawsuit. SEIU has long been cherry-picking quotes from the trusteeship hearings and Judge Alsup’s pre-trial rulings to tarnish NUHW, yet workers in hospital after hospital are still voting for NUHW by large margins.
The chief beneficiary of this trial is likely to be hospital owners USC University Hospital in East Los Angeles, who will use the jury verdict as part of their ongoing strategy to convince workers to vote for “no union.” Management will not only make the case that an independent jury has confirmed that workers cannot trust NUHW’s leadership to protect members, but will also argue that workers should avoid being caught in the middle of inter-union disputes so rancorous that they end up in federal court.
I have heard few voices outside SEIU who believes that this lawsuit well serves the labor movement, and the verdict is unlikely to change this. In fact, California Democratic Party Chair John Burton responded to the verdict by saying, “at a time when workers across California are facing layoffs and cuts to their wages and benefits, it’s a shame that SEIU has wasted members’ dues money litigating a smear campaign.”
Note: I rushed right from the courtroom to get out this story, and some of my numbers on the verdicts may be slightly off.
Randy Shaw is the author of Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century., which will be out in paperback in July.
THIS IS A UNION FOR YOU, PAY THE MONEY FIRST THEN SUE THEM EXPENDING 15,000,000.00 MILLION DOLLARS AND RETAKE 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS, HUH?