Several weeks back, during the deepest throes of the budget crisis, I wrote that the problems of the state are not a matter of personality but process, and you can reason that out to understand that a change in the personalities without a concurrent change in process will accomplish absolutely nothing on reforming the state and getting a functional government again in California.  This thought occurred to me again last night, as I sat in the press section during Gavin Newsom’s “conversation with California” as part of his tour of the southern part of the state.  Newsom’s description of the challenges the state faces – and his solutions – gear more to the idea that a different person, dedicated to solving the same problems in a new way, can overcome any obstacle, rather than the reality that no individual under the current system of rules could possibly thrive.  And while the San Francisco Mayor shows a recognition of the structural impossibility of California, his relative nonchalance about how to reform it shows he believes for more in himself to overcome the rules than the demonstrable history of the rules overcoming everyone in their path.

First, let’s be clear that Newsom is running with someone else’s platform.  The first policy mentioned last night as a reflection of his record is the Healthy San Francisco effort toward universal care for the uninsured in his city.  That is not his plan to tout, and the simultaneous description of it as a savior for the state’s residents while cutting $100 million dollars from the city’s Department of Public Health and programs aimed at the needy is nothing short of troubling.

“It’s not that Healthy San Francisco is wrong its the mayor’s obvious …” (Tom Ammiano) pauses. “Look, he’s running for governor and taking full credit for it. It’s not true. The labor community, my office, community activists, health people — some of the same people who are unhappy with him now — worked with him on this. When he goes out there and claims full credit, that pisses people off, especially people who are dealing with [health care in the city] every day. … The reaction is really based on the mayor boasting and overselling Healthy San Francisco.” […]

“Healthy San Francisco — I think people should be very proud of it. I think it’s going to meet its full potential. The rollout is going to be incremental and there’s going to be little tweaks that it needs. But, you know, that’s not the target […] Unfortunately, it’s getting tainted because of the mayor’s boasting and overselling of it.”

The neighborhood clinics at the heart of the Healthy San Francisco plan are at full capacity while funding is being slashed, and additional “woodworking” – residents coming out of the woodwork to seek services.  The revenues aren’t meeting the expenses, and the General Fund of the city, now facing a $590 million dollar shortfall (less per capita than Los Angeles’), has to make up the difference.  As the economy continues to slow and the ranks of the unemployed swell, those at the bottom of the income ladder are already seeing service cuts.  I would simply call it bad politics to put so much emphasis on a program you can barely claim ownership to and are cutting funding for at the same time as more services are desired.  And this is sadly part of a pattern of the whole story being left out.

But let’s set aside the issues for a moment.  As focused as I am on process, I awaited Newsom’s response to the inevitable questions about budget reform.  He asserted support for a 50% + 1 threshold for the budget process, using the line “You need two-thirds of the vote to pass a budget, but only a simple majority to deny civil rights,” referring to marriage equality.  It’s a good line, but he leaves out that he was shamed into changing his position after the initial proposal for a 55% threshold was slammed by just about everyone.  The first instinct was to half-ass reform.  There was also no explanation that there are two thresholds requiring two-thirds, the budget and tax increases, leaving his answer fairly vague, as it has been in the past.  

But far worse than this was his flippant approval of Prop. 1A, the draconian spending cap that would effectively eliminate what amounts to half of the state school budget within a few years, and his dishonest rendering of the initiative as “a rainy day fund,” without explaining how the rainy day fund is created.  On the other ballot measures like 1C, 1D and 1E, which would privatize the lottery and raid voter-approved funds for children’s programs and mental health, he gave a Solomonic “on the one hand, on the other hand” soliloquy and ended saying that he would be a bad spokesman for them.

This, then, is what needs to be kept in mind when Newsom urges a call for a constitutional convention.  We see by his stances on the May special election what he would reasonably be expected to get out of that convention – a constitution that includes a “rainy day fund” created by a spending cap, coming at it from a right-wing perspective and ultimately resulting in a fake reform.  This is essentially the position of Arnold Schwarzenegger, clueless media elites, bipartisan fetishists who assume without evidence the midpoint of any argument is automatically the best option, and most tellingly, the Bay Area Council, which makes perfect sense.

Meantime, the Schwarzenegger-sponsored political campaign in support of the six measures announced today an endorsement from the Bay Area Council, the business-centric public policy organization that is the impetus behind calls for a constitutional convention. Last week, Schwarzenegger made it quite clear that he supports the first convening of a state constitutional convention in some 150 years… a way to focus on multiple ideas for government reform at one time.

These two announcements certainly play to the idea of another “business vs. labor” narrative in California politics. Another possible fuel for that storyline comes in a $250,000 donation to the pro-budget measure committee on Friday by wealthy Orange County developer Henry Segerstrom. The donation from one of his companies is easily his largest campaign contribution in recent years, which saw smaller checks written to both the guv’s 2006 reelection efforts and to the California Republican Party.

I support a Constitutional convention because I know what my principles are.  I don’t support mealy-mouthed calls for “reform” that are essentially corporate-friendly back doors to advance the interests of the powerful over the people.

Ultimately, Randy Shaw has this right – the people of California could elect Noam Chomsky, Warren Buffett or Howard Jarvis, and nothing would fundamentally change until the structures that restrict anyone in Sacramento from doing their jobs are released.  And our assessment of who would be best to lead that reform should be based on deeds and not words.

If California’s future is measured by our education system, we are in deep trouble. And we are in this difficulty because the state’s Democratic Party and progressive activists have allowed right-wing Republicans to exert major control over the state’s budget.

I say “allowed” because there is no other explanation for elected officials and activists failing to put a measure on the November 2008 ballot removing the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget. Although state Republicans made their opposition to new taxes clear, progressives passed up a large turnout ballot whose voters would have approved such a reform. Passage of such an initiative would have avoided the billions of dollars in cuts we went on to face, with more cuts slated for future years […]

If we have learned anything from the past months, it should be that putting money into state candidates will accomplish less than passing the budgetary reforms and tax hikes needed to return California to its leadership in education and other areas […]

It’s time for the people to say “Yes We Can” to a new progressive future for California. Once the people lead, the politicians — particularly those seeking their votes — will follow.

It is senseless to discuss candidates for a race into a straitjacket, which is the current dress code for Sacramento.  Anything less than fundamental reform will not solve the enormous set of problems the state faces – and it will take more than charisma, but an actual commitment, to make it happen.

Single-payer healthcare reform has a new bill number and a new sponsor.  With my former State Senator Sheila Kuehl termed out, Mark Leno has stepped up to carry SB810, which in the past was known as SB840.  The bill would, in the words of the press release, “guarantee comprehensive health care benefits to every California resident and streamline claims and reimbursements, which will save billions of dollars in health care administrative costs.”  Here’s Sen. Leno:

“As a nation, we spend twice as much per person on health care as other wealthy countries, with the hope that our families will be protected from illnesses, yet most insured Americans still worry about how they will afford critical care if they become sick,” said Senator Leno. “In California, 7 million people do not have health insurance. Wasteful health care spending is crushing our economy and forcing families to forego basic medical care. With the money we spend today on health care, California can have a modern, universal health care system that provides high quality care for everyone,” he said.

A version of this bill has basically already passed the California Legislature, only to be vetoed by the Governor.  So it shouldn’t be a surprise that 43 lawmakers, including both leaders in the Assembly and Senate, have already signed on as co-sponsors.

Given the conservative veto and the 2/3 rule for revenue, SB810 lacks a funding source, so even if it were signed at some point – and realistically, Governor Schwarzenegger won’t be the one to sign it – supporters wold have to go to the ballot to raise the necessary revenue to fund the bill.  

There is no question that our health care delivery system is grossly inefficient, and insurance company profit and overhead is a pool of money that does little to provide quality care.  As a nation we spend an extreme amount on health care – $2.4 trillion dollars in 2008, closing in on 20% of GDP – without a proportional increase in health care outcomes over the rest of the industrialized world.  In fact, we pay more for care while ranking below dozens of nations in quality.  Single-payer care, while varied in different nations across the world, has generally been proven to offer the best quality at the most reduced cost.

But of course, that is on a national level.  And even though with 38 million people we have as many citizens as several other nations which have implemented single-payer, universal health care, what we lack is a printing press to coin our own money.  Given the constraints of a balanced budget, given the far more onerous constraints of the conservative veto, and given that states have little control over the boom and bust cycles of the national economy, universal health plans have largely come ashore and beached when they are done at the state level.  There are certainly reforms that can take place here, but we need the structural reform to set the table for them, and even with that, I am highly dubious (though willing to be convinced) that any state can manage UHC on their own without the tool of deficit spending that would occasionally be needed.  And history bears this out.

(Not totally a local issue, but it involves a lot of local players, and continues on a subject that gets a lot of attention around here, so I thought I’d share.  Reprinted from my site.)

There’s something of a consensus that Netroots Nation didn’t offer enough adversarial panels and instead largely consisted of bloggers agreeing with one another.  But that’s not true.  I personally witnessed the most adversarial panel of the weekend, and it was spectacular, because finally, both factions of the debate about health care policy on the left were able to come together and understand the political contours of the brewing fight in the Congress.

over…

The panel was entitled “Time for Action: How the Netroots Can Lead on Healthcare Reform,” and was put together by Eve Gittleson, who blogs at Daily Kos under the moniker nyceve.  There’s a good liveblog of the panel here, but what you need to know is that Gittleson stacked the deck.  She had some great health care activists who are doing great work in different areas of the space: Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH a New York cancer surgeon; Hilda Sarkisyan, whose daughter, Nataline, died after being denied a liver transplant by Cigna; Rocky Delgadillo, Los Angeles City Attorney, who is pursuing civil and criminal investigation into insurance practices; Geri Jenkins, RN a member of the Council of Presidents of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.  And then Ezra Klein, associate editor for The American Prospect and a health care policy guru, appeared at the end of the panel.  The aforementioned speakers were all powerful advocates.  Sarkysian, whose family HAD health insurance and still couldn’t get their daughter what she needed, said bluntly “This is not a good country anymore.”  Del Priore discussed the need for doctors and patients to handle questions of care and the need to arrest insurance executives for their crimes in denying coverage.  Rocky Delgadillo outlined the schemes, like rescission (even based on spousal applications), that insurers are engaging in to maximize profit at the expense of patient care.  He also mentioned how California regulators ignored a million-dollar fine to Blue Cross because they feared they would lose the case if it went to court, which is just unbelievable.  And Jenkins argued that the insurance industry will play no role in reforming health care, and we need to move immediately to a not-for-profit system.

Good points all.  And then Eve turned to Ezra:

Eve: Ezra, why does HCAN want to condemn Americans to this kind of system? I get confusing emails from Elizabeth Edwards and MoveOn talking about the atrocities of the insurance industry, then marginalizing the only viable solution. Can you explain this new Edwards HCAN initiative, the TV commercials, etc. . . What’s it all about? What are they trying to do? It seems there are three initiatives on the table–676, Wyden  and HCAN.  What’s wrong with Wyden and Edwards? And a follow-up…what can we realistically expect from President Obama?

I hope you don’t mind that I’m sand-bagging you. I love you, really, Ezra. I just don’t agree with you on this point.

This apparently startled Mr. Klein.  But for him to not know the position of Eve and the CNA and an activist like Hilda Sarkysian speaks a lot to his cloistered state in Washington.  Because I know all about this fight.  I made one positive comment about HCAN upon their launch and took massive amounts of crap for it.  I was called a defeatist and admonished for not being true to the cause.  My only point was that having an organization with $40 million dollars to spend on calling out health insurers on their garbage is going to be tremendously helpful to whatever reform we get through the Congress, and furthermore I didn’t see them having much of a place at the table in the policy debate.  In other words they were finally an organization concerned with moving public opinion and playing the health care debate out on political grounds rather than policy grounds.  And on the panel, Klein echoed the importance of politics over policy:

You can take a lot of approaches to health reform. You can emphasize policy, politics, principles, or some mix thereof. Judging from the panel, Health Care for All, and the California Nurses, could use a bit more politics in their approach. It was a panel about “health reform” — not care or policy, but “reform” — at a conference of engaged politicos that never mentioned the Senate, or votes, or the conditions required for presidential signature.

There was a lot of talk about “fighting” insurers and other special interests, but not much about what that fight will look like, or where it will take place, or who decides the winner. My argument, was that, for reformers, insurers aren’t the real enemy. Setting them up as the opponent actually gives them too much credit. Insurers are stupid, profit seeking beasts — the enemy is American politics, and in particular, the structural feature of the US Senate that have repeatedly killed health reform in the past. No matter what your policy preference, that’s where your organizing has to be focused, because that’s where the actual fight happens: In Congress. Not on panels, or on blogs, or among the Left. In the US Senate, where you have to get to 60, or at least figure out how to get rough Democratic unity for using budget reconciliation and then convince Kennedy and Carper to vote “aye” on the same bill.

This is basically the same argument Ezra makes continuously on his site, but it appeared to hit the audience like they never heard it before.  And considering that it’s largely the correct analysis, it was generally well-received, I thought.  I spoke later with Eve, who told me that she had a conversation with someone from HCAN and “they are not the enemy.”  What a concept – all elements of health care advocacy on the left working together, for a change, toward a common goal.

Now granted, this week they all had a big juicy target.  AHIP, the health insurance lobby, put together a fake grassroots front group called The Campaign for an American Solution.  Of course, that “solution” involves funneling more cash and customers to the same broken insurance system we have now.  Now, who was the very first group to coordinate a counter-attack on this front group on the first stop of their listening tour in Columbus, OH?  That’s right, HCAN

Well, that didn’t take long.

A day after Politico reported the health insurance industry is launching a health care reform campaign next week, the progressive reformers are firing back.

Health Care for America Now announced Friday that it plans a news conference and a rally next week to counter the insurance industry’s Campaign for an American Solution, which launches in Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday with a roundtable discussion among uninsured locals.

“They’re pretending that the health industry represents the American public, and we need to make it really clear to them and the public that all they represent are their own profits,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care Now.

Indeed they did attend the launch, and got to ask some tough questions, confronting the head of AHIP and asking her how an insurance industry group could possibly be objective in pushing for lower rates and higher quality coverage when they are concerned solely with the profit motive.  It got heated, and I’m glad they did.  And all of a sudden, Daou’s Triangle started closing.  Rep. Pete Stark came up with a great quote:

“America’s Health Insurance Plans’ new ‘Campaign for an American Solution’ rings as true as the tobacco industry’s efforts to end smoking. There is nothing grassroots about it. It is designed, financed, and coordinated through their Washington trade association with the singular goal of protecting their profits.

“I hope it is true that these companies intend to be a positive force in health reform efforts, but I tend to be cautious when the fox starts drawing up plans for a new henhouse.”

HCAN called up the hotline for the Campaign for an American Solution that they set up for the public to provide input… and they got an answering machine.  They’ve trickled this out one by one and pretty much ruined the launch of AHIP’s front group.  That’s REALLY important for the future of health care reform.  Because on the policy the views are far closer on the left than most people imagine.  Everyone knows that whatever system is ultimately put forward can be paid for in a far better manner than the current wasteful, inefficient system.  So expense should never be a deterrent, meaning we can build whatever system we choose and it is extremely likely to go revenue-neutral very quickly once we eliminate the shoddy budgeting of the current broken system.  We know that health insurers will not jeopardize their profit margins unless they’re forced to.  Once you recognize these two realities, the policy goals become fairly clear.  The political goals have to include attack dogs pushing back on the false memes of the right and the insurance industry, and pressuring the Senate to do the right thing.

Now Obama’s plan includes some better regulation toward insurers (including guaranteed issue and community rating) and a public option to compete with the private insurance market and take the step toward a sequential single-payer.  (His latest addition to the plan, a tax credit for small businesses who offer quality health care, is borrowed directly from the Clinton plan, raising hopes that eventually he’ll just borrow all of it, as he should).  Despite this being a fairly modest set of reforms, McCain and the right are going to denounce it as government-run “Hillarycare” anyway.  So it’s vital to have a broad coalition to give as good as they’ll get from the right and give the lawmakers backbone to push the policy forward.  Matt Stoller writes:

Coalitions are strange beasts, with multiple moving parts, but they are also the only way anything gets done.  A coalition has a core of organizers behind it, and a variety of groups out in front who each take different roles.  Some people can talk to Republicans, some people can talk to Democrats, some people threaten, some people cajole, some people talk to businesses, etc.  HCAN is driven by labor in the form of SEIU, the NEA, AFSCME, and United Food and Commercial Workers, as well as groups primarily funded by labor such as Americans United for Change and the Campaign for America’s Future.  It is also driven by direct mail and Foundation based organizations,  such as La Raza, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, and the National Women’s Law Center.

Stoller goes on to make the point that HCAN should broaden their mandate and make this a fight about general health, and I agree.  Going after convenience stores that sell fatty, sugar-laden food to kids sounds like it could be a part of their mandate.  The farm bill, the transportation bill (more mass transit and more livable, walkable cities means healthier lives), and others could be brought onto the field of battle.  But the larger point is that coalitions of this nature are built because they work.  And the benefit is that they give lawmakers breathing space to do their job and the spine to do it right.  This moment in health care demands that everyone understands the political spade work necessary to reach the desired outcome.  So out of the ashes of that contentious NN panel came something pretty special.  Groups across the center-left ideological spectrum working together to end the health care crisis in America and restore treatment as a basic human right.

Today marks the launch of Health Care For America Now, a national coalition which plans to organize millions of Americans at the grassroots level to advocate for quality, affordable health care for everyone.  

We’re bringing together community organizers, nurses, doctors, small business owners, faith-based groups, organizations of people of color, and seniors who believe it’s time we had an American solution that provides quality, affordable health care for everyone.  

We’re offering a bold new solution that gives you real choice and a guarantee of quality coverage you can afford: keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.  

We’re also calling for regulation on health insurance companies. We need to set and enforce rules that quash health insurance companies’ greed once and for all.There is a huge divide between our plan and the insurance companies’ plan for healthcare reform. We want to make sure you have the quality coverage you need at the price you can afford. They want to leave you alone to fend for yourself in the unregulated, bureaucratic health insurance market.

Our plan is affordable for people and business. Their plan is profitable for them. With no regulation, health insurance companies can and will charge whatever they want, set high deductibles, and continue to drop coverage when you get sick.   Now is the time to pick a side. Which side are you on?

Elizabeth Edwards is one of the high-profile faces of this coalition, but it’s fairly broad, including AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn.org, the NEA, National Women’s Law Center, Planned Parenthood, the SEIU, the UFCW, and USAction.  Today they are running live launch events all over the country, including two in California.  One is happening at this hour in Los Angeles, featuring Lt. Governor John Garamendi.  There’s another event in San Francisco on the steps of City Hall at 11:30 featuring Mayor Gavin Newsom.  The names shouldn’t surprise you – they’re both two of the most high-profile advocates for universal health care in the state, and they’ll both use the issue as a springboard for their 2010 gubernatorial campaigns.

What I’m more interested in is HCAN’s strategy to work inside Bush Dog districts to hold them accountable should they prostrate themselves for the insurance industry.

The work of Health Care For America Now was first made public late last week. But the group, with Elizabeth Edwards as a figurehead, offered expanded insight into the details of its campaign during a meeting on Monday. In addition to spending $40 million — $1.5 million of which will be put behind an initial ad buy (national TV, print, and online) — the group will be sending organizers to 52 cities, blasting out emails to 5 million households, airing spots on MSNBC and CNN and submitting op-eds to major papers (officials hinted at the New York Times piece to come).

In addition, the campaign is going to take advantage of Moveon.org’s massive data files to reach out to like-minded supporters and officials promised to work in Democratic and Republican districts alike.

“We’ll have an organizer in the district of every Blue Dog Democrat,” said HCAN campaign manager Richard Kirsch of the conservative Democrats.

“The focus of the campaign,” he added, “is on national legislation. “This year, however, it is also a referendum: do you support quality, affordable, health care for all, or an alliance with the private insurance industry?”

Right on.  These Bush Dogs need constant pressure and the threat of job loss in order to do right by their constituents.  I don’t know how successful HCAN will be, but they certainly have the right strategy.

Dan Weintraub has a stupid column about single-payer health care that uses the same rhetoric that has locked us into a broken status quo for the history of the Republic.  He claims that a new legislative analyst’s report of the costs of SB840, if implemented today, would leave the state $40 billion dollars in the red after just one year.  That’s true, but as Sheila Kuehl explains, that’s because health care costs have soared while wages remain stagnant, and thus the numbers from the original assessment of the bill are completely out of date.  Weintraub then achnowledges this, but asserts that only 50 percent of the deficit can be attributed to a run-up in health care costs.

Of course, that’s $20 billion dollars.  And one element that Weintraub refuses to consider is cost control, which is the only way any fundamentally new health care system will survive, be it single payer or a collective-responsibility plan like that rejected by the State Senate last year.  Weintraub never tries to factor in cost control.  He never manages to analyze whether or not a system that takes middle men out of the process and removes the profit driver might be able to reduce the price of quality care.  In the same way he never considers whether mandating that insurance companies spend a high percentage of premium revenue on treatment and care would reduce those costs he sees as fixed.

Spending on health care is out of control because there is a patchwork quilt of delivery services, diced up between insurers, hospitals, managed-care organizations, and other elements who add cost without impacting quality.  It’s, in short, an efficiency problem; the United States is grossly inefficient in its delivery of services, and despite superior technology and high spending has a life expectancy which trails 30 other countries and has the highest rate of underweight babies in 40 years, to cite just two examples.  Subjecting a fiscal analysis of a system that would eliminate or sharply reduce the fiscal burden of this quilt to the old rules, and the old costs, makes no sense whatsoever.  It’s like doing an fiscal analysis in the 21st century of the naval budget, factoring in the effects of ships falling off edge of the world.

There’s also the moral argument that we have over seventy million uninsured and underinsured Americans in a country which lists “life” as a fundamental inalienable right.  But I’ll shove that aside for a moment to deride Weintraub’s limiting analysis.

In an extraordinary convention just concluding in Puerto Rico, here’s what you didn’t hear from Andy Stern’s paid PR blitz.  SEIU was under siege throughout by protest encampments of the popular Puerto Rican Teachers’ Union, responding to SEIU’s raid of the island’s largest  union– during a strike to improve horrific educational conditions.  

Inside the convention, to the detriment of the overall labor movement,  Stern successfully squashed  the internal dissent by SEIU’s democracy activists, thereby further concentrating power in himself.  The CEO model.

And in an extraordinary development, Stern announced that  SEIU is basically doing away with labor reps in favor of outsourced call centers…which makes sense, in that if you sign no-strike promises to your employer, why would you need to mobilize your members?  

There’s more!  SEIU is continuing its war against state and national RN unions by now picking up John McCain’s frame of attacking “government-run healthcare” as their latest salvo against the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO).  If anyone doubted SEIU’s willingness to sell out genuine healthcare reform in a second, there it is.

Details below…

Juan Gonzalez and Democracy Now note that SEIU is trying to colonize the independent Puerto Rican teachers’ union in the midst of a historic  strike-and hope to do the same to other Latin American unions.  Solidardad no mas?  Read the background here or watch the video here about why SEIU was facing a protest encampment by Puerto Rican teachers .  Gonzalez:

I think that the key thing here is that the teachers’ union is the largest and most militant union in Puerto Rico and has always been, and the efforts of SEIU earlier this year when the teachers were in the middle of a major battle and a strike with the government to step in, in essence, and to try to take over or raid the leadership of the union, has created enormous reverberations throughout the labor movement in the United States, as well as in Latin America. I think, in fact, one of the most interesting things was that Stern and Dennis Rivera announced before the convention started that they are going to begin a new effort from Puerto Rico throughout Latin America to build ties between the SEIU to build global unions. So, in essence, what SEIU is trying to do by gaining control of the teachers’ union and, in effect, the Puerto Rican labor movement is to then branch out into the rest of Latin America. Now, they insist that they’re not going to do it in a way that will hurt the autonomy or the democracy of those unions, but the record has so far-has not been too good in that way. …. But the fact that SEIU would have such a demonstration at its national convention shows that the contradictions are growing there.

Gonzalez also notes the irony of SEIU pretending to carry the banner of labor reform, while consolidating power in one problematic leader.  

And the reality is that SEIU has increasingly become a more centralized union in the way it operates, and it is increasingly, in terms of some critics, doing anything it can to grow, in terms of making arrangements or deals with political leaders to be able to expand membership in different parts of the country. So I think that this is an important or watershed moment, because the SEIU is leading the supposed reform movement within organized labor, when now the leaders of the reform movement are being challenged over the nature of their reform. And I think that this is the opening salvo in what’s going to continue to be an ongoing battle.

Labor journalist Steve Early also covers the contradiction of Andy Stern holding a convention in Puerto Rico-exactly while trying to bust the Island’s largest and most-beloved union!

Using the “mobile picketing” skills well honed during a ten-day strike by thousands of teachers in February, the FMPR delegation marched right up to a police check-point–two hundred yards from the meeting hall-and burst right through. The flying wedge took  several casualties along the way, from flailing  police clubs and attempted collars. They then made a successful dash for the front door of the building, which is bigger than an airline terminal.

The ensuing picket-line-composed of fleet-footed survivors of the race to get in-had a feisty David vs. Goliath feel to it. For more than two hours, the teachers walked, chanted, sang union songs, distributed leaflets, and displayed a big FMPR banner under the soaring arches of the! convention center entrance. The FMPR message was “Stop Union Raids” — one that SEIU has fervently embraced back home but only when the California Nurses Association is “raiding” SEIU, in which case it should stop immediately….

Apparently the reform and democracy activists within SEIU were squashed by Andy Stern.  One reports:

While obviously they wanted to go out on a high note, this convention will always have a cloud hanging over it, memorable for its unparalleled security, its level of doublespeak, its stomping on free speech, and now its marred election process.

Meanwhile, SEIU actually told the New York Times that they are doing away with labor reps, the people who walk the halls of facilities and organize workers.  Instead?  Call centers.  “Please hold if you want to stand up to the boss.”  This is an extraordinary development, and one that undermines genuine worker power.

As 2,000 convention delegates gather in Puerto Rico, the Service Employees International Union is about to jettison a time-honored union tradition – having members go to their union representatives with their questions and grievances.  The delegates are expected to vote to have union members rely on call centers instead to handle their problems.

But some union leaders and members complain that the call centers would hurt the union and its members.  Sometimes you can’t get through to these centers,” said Eva Lozada, a home-care worker from Oakland, Calif. “It’s like talking to an A.T.M. This will be bad for the union.”

Hilariously, SEIU’s latest attack on the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee is the same one John McCain launches at Barack Obama: supporting “government-run healthcare”.

In a mailing to CNA/NNOC members this week, SEIU blasts CNA/NNOC for supporting a “government-run health care system.” McCain has used almost identical language to disparage Obama’s proposals for healthcare reform on an issue that will be a major focus of the fall campaign.

“By carelessly and cynically adopting the McCain language, SEIU is not only showing its contempt for the majority of Americans who have told pollsters that the government should guarantee healthcare for everyone as a solution to the healthcare crisis that has put so many of our families at risk.

“They are also giving aid, comfort, and ammunition to Sen. McCain whose own healthcare plan would be a disastrous continuation of the dismal and failed status quo,” said CNA/NNOC co-president Malinda Markowitz, RN….

To obtain sweetheart deals with employers, SEIU has “routinely sacrificed patients,” CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro noted. She cited, for example, an agreement with California nursing home operators under which SEIU agreed to back legislation impeding patients’ rights to sue over nursing home abuses and oppose reforms to require better staffing for patient safety. SEIU also joined with the New York hospital industry to endorse the closure of hospitals and nursing homes.

Another independent nurses union-New York Professional Nurses Union-calls on all RNs to resist SEIU, due to their terrible track record of representing RN issues.  They write in an open letter about their experiences with SEIU:

1199/SEIU has a top-down leadership structure with very few RNs in top leadership positions.

We negotiated strong contract language only after we left 1199, including minimum nurse/patient ratios and a prohibition against all mandatory overtime.  

We became an independent union in order to gain control over our own bargaining and our own professional lives.  No union can represent the interest of registered professional nurses better than a nurses union.  Nurses need a union of nurse, by nurses and for nurses.  

Serving Employers Instead of Us.

Andy Stern’s SEIU International has gone and proven why RNs want nothing to do with.

Even though they’re providing the evidence for all the critiques of CNA/NNOC, today is a dark, dark day for the labor movement.  Last night, in Dearborn Michigan, at an annual conference of union activists, sponsored by the non-partisal Labor Notes SEIU resorted to violence to get their messages across.

I will link to the release and pictures after the release.

I’m sure SEIU will come on here with some crazy spin justifying their violence, but please first answer these questions:

1. Will SEIU pay the bill of the hospitalized worker?

2. Will Andy Stern promise to renounce violence?

3. Will you aplogize to all involved?

4. Will we see the same tactics in other venues?

I ask everyone reading this to go look at these two pictures: here and here.

That is the face of modern-day union thuggery.  

And now I’m posting below the press release put out by Labor Notes.  They only have a short blurb up on their site so far, but this release has been circulating, and I am going to post the whole thing:

April 12, 2008

SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ATTACKS LABOR GATHERING- CONFERENCE-GOERS ASSAULTED

Dearborn, MI-The Service Employees International Union turned their dispute with the California Nurses Association violent by attacking a labor conference April 12, injuring several and sending an American Axle striker to the hospital.

A recently retired member of United Auto Workers Local 235, Dianne Feeley, suffered a head wound after being knocked to the ground by SEIU International staff and local members. Other conference-goers-members of the Teamsters, UAW, UNITE HERE, International Longshoremen’s Association, and SEIU itself-were punched, kicked, shoved, and pushed to the floor. Dearborn police responded and evicted the three bus loads of SEIU International staff and members of local and regional health care unions. No arrests were made.

The assault took place at the Labor Notes conference, a biennial gathering of 1,100 union members and leaders who met to discuss strategies to rebuild the labor movement.

David Cohen, an international representative of the United Electrical Workers, asked protesters why they came. He said one responded, “they told us just to get on the bus.” The protesters included several members with young children, who had to be ushered away when SEIU tried to force their way into the conference banquet hall. Protesters were targeting Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the AFL-CIO-affiliated CNA. DeMoro was scheduled to speak but declined to appear after threats were made against her union’s leadership.

Despite being welcomed to the conference earlier in the day-and given space to debate supporters of the CNA and the National Nurses Organizing Committee about neutrality organizing agreements-SEIU international and regional staff shouted down speakers at workshops and panels throughout the event.

“Labor Notes has always been a space for open debate, but when a union decides to engage in violence against their brothers and sisters, we draw a line,” said Mark Brenner, director of Labor Notes. “Violence within the labor movement is unacceptable and we call on the national leadership of SEIU, including President Andy Stern, to repudiate it.”

For more information, contact Chris Kutalik 313-378-2588 or Mischa Gaus 773-627-3205  

A major reason for the increasing controversy surrounding SEIU International has been their lack of commitment to genuine healthcare reform-and in fact their active attempts to undermine and sink patient-centered, single-payer reforms.  

Progressive elements in the labor movement (and their own union) have long been aware of this problem, as have healthcare and single-payer activists around the country.  

This story is now entering the wider public discussion as SEIU International embarks on new partnerships with corporate America and, all too often, Republican power brokers.  We’ll take a look, below, at their latest partnership, this one with the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Association of Realtors, to support a bill that hurts patients in the name of increasing insurance corporation profits-and, perhaps, winning employer sanction for SEIU organizing.

…for more background, please visit the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee’s new site, ServingEmployersInsteadofUs.

Jeffrey Young in the Hill newspaper this morning unveils the new partnership:

A bipartisan group of senators, with the support of small-business and labor union lobbyists, on Wednesday unveiled legislation they said would go a long way toward expanding healthcare coverage for the largest segment of the uninsured… the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to develop the legislation. …[to]  break a deadlock that has stalled past efforts to facilitate access to health benefits for small-business owners, their employees and the self-employed… in addition to the business groups, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has endorsed the bill.

What does  the bill do?

The legislation would combine annual tax credits up to $2,000 per worker for small-business owners and $3,600 for the self-employed with state- and federally based insurance pools designed to spread risk for insurers and reduce premiums for workers.

Please note that these tax changes to encourage more people to purchase private, for-profit insurance products are the basis of the healthcare proposals of both George Bush and John McCain.  These policies are widely disparaged by most healthcare reform activists because they further entrench the insurance industry in the delivery of care, will lead to greater profits for the insurance industry at the expense of patient care, and make it that much harder for our nation to ever achieve the guaranteed, single-payer healthcare reform we desperately need.

Here’s what right-wing Senator Mike Enzi had to say about the proposal:

 Asked about the Durbin-Snowe bill, a spokesman said Enzi “welcomes bipartisan efforts to bring market-based solutions to the health insurance crisis that is hurting millions of families.”

“Market-based” health care solution is a Republican talking point that basically means, “let’s do everything we can to help insurance corporations and stop single-payer healthcare.”

This kind of selling out of healthcare reform is the same pattern SEIU International has engaged in across the country, most recently when Andy Stern put his credibility on the line to help Arnold Schwarzenegger pass a bill, with the support of insurance companies, that would have included enormous public subsidies to insurance corporations and a mandate that all individuals purchase their products,no matter the cost or quality.  The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organzing Committe, along with most of the labor movement in California, healthcare activists and progressive Democrats, defeated that bill by holding it to one single “yes” vote in the state Senate.

Unfortunately these type  of partnerships with corporate CEO’s and Republicans have become standard business practice for SEIU in recent years, as it looks to get new members through organizing employers instead of workers.

A few other examples:

1. In New York, SEIU and the New York State Hospital Association have long worked together to ensure that the Republicans control the state Senate This is a key reason why New York has not had a single-payer bill passed…bad for patients, but good for SEIU’s hospital partners.

2. This post documents SEIU’s partnership with Pfizer to sell Lipitor.  This is ethically and medically dangerous, as wellas representative of the reason that Registered Nurses historically have not wanted to join the SEIU.  RNs are patient advocates, and you can’t advocate both for patients and Pfizer.  One of the other, not both.

3. The Nation documents Stern’s partnership with Lee Scott, the CEO of Wal-Mart, in a PR coup for the embattled company, looking to turn around its reputation for denying healthcare to its employees.  The author notes Stern crossed a UFCW picket line to appear on stage with Scott, despite UFCW’s heroic efforts to organize Wal-Mart workers.

4,000 brave women and men, RNs from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, are spending this week on the picket lines outside of Sutter Health Hospitals throughout Northern California, on a 10-day strike over patient care issues.  Let me tell you about it, and introduce you to some of the RNs, because this is an important strike for a re-energized American labor movement and a key moment for the nation’s battle for quality healthcare.

First up, of course, the nurses:

This is a long strike for any worker, but one that turns on the most basic issues of nursing and patient safety.  Sutter Health is, even by HMO standards, an outlier in their push to cut corners on patient care in order to bump up corporate profits.  You can’t argue with their success on either count.  In 2006, Sutter reported record profits of $587 million.  Much of those profits come from routinely understaffing their hospital units by denying meal and rest breaks to nurses.  As a practical matter, what this means is that if a nurse, in the midst of a 12-hour shift, decides to take her lunch hour…then her patients lose coverage.

Can you imagine that terrible ethical dilemma?  Grab a sandwich or make sure my sick patients are cared for?  Especially for nurses, who define their work as “patient advocacy?”

That’s why these nurses had to walk out and make a personal sacrifice for the good of their patients and their profession.

Sutter’s response?  To embark on a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and lies.  Read more about it here.  Sutter has threatened to fire strikers, cut off health benefits, has posted guards at nursing stations to glare at RNs, and has taken to regularly demonizing its own nurses in the press.

The good news?  Sutter foolishly picked a fight with a group of (mostly) women who are not easily intimidated…especially by some corporate hack who have shown they don’t care about patient care.

The better news?  This strike affirms the relevance of America’s labor movement to the key questions our country is undergoing.  This strike has been marked by deep public support and sympathy, with Sutter Health’s behavior roundly criticized by elected officials, the public, and the news media.  High-profile strikes like this that win over the public make it easier for other groups of workers to stand up for their own rights.  It’s worth noting that the recent increase in the numbers of unionized workers has largely come from the ranks of healthcare workers-and that CNA/NNOC is the nation’s fastest-growing union.

And the best news?  The nurses of Sutter Health are demonstrating the way forward in our country’s struggle for guaranteed healthcare.  A major reason our health system is so dysfunctional is that corporations like Sutter Health have rigged the system and treat patients as profit-makers, not as human beings.  If we can win patient safety advances at Sutter, we can win them across the country-especially if we inspire the nation’s nurses to continue taking their patient advocacy from the bedside to the statehouse and even to the streets.

If these nurses inspire you, why not call the CEO of Sutter, Pat Fry at 916 286 6752 and tell him it’s time to settle with the nurses!

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we fight to bring about guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model…