“It’s about rules being broken.” As simple as that statement may be, it encapsulates what this case is about. With that, Mr. Gary Kholman – lead attorney for UHW in our lawsuit against Sal Rosselli and the other officials who were kicked out of our union – painted for the jury a pattern of decisions the defendants made and the events that followed since the report by Leonard Page in August 2008 recommending that 65,000 long term care workers be removed out of Sal Rosselli’s jurisdiction and into a Local of their own within SEIU.
Knowing that not abiding by the decision of the International would jeopardize their power, the defendants started to hold secret meetings to plot, Kohlman said in his opening argument. Kohlman outlined different steps in the misuse of the union’s funds, including the presentation of a knowingly false defense to the trusteeship when it came to their reasons for creating the PEF (“Patient Education Fund”). The defendants also scrambled the membership database, began looking for “offsite” office space, and improperly tapped into the union’s computer system so they could access it from their homes and bypass the union’s IT department. In September 2008, they started to formulate a cover up, and a plan to make the Local “ungovernable.” At the same time, field reps were instructed – rather than represent members – to develop networks of stewards and other loyal followers that would circulate decertification/disaffiliation petitions.
Days prior to trusteeship in late January 2009 they hired a security firm to specifically keep the International staff out, encouraged stewards to continue circulating decertification petitions and recruited members to chain themselves to the offices and prevent an orderly transfer of authority. On January 28, 2009 barely one day after the defendants were relieved of the top positions they once held, they announced the formation of NUHW.
In his opening argument for the defense, Mr. Siegel tried to argue the merits of the trusteeship, something that earned him Judge Alsup’s admonishment…again. He then said Rosselli was motivated by his concern of protecting patient care and how UHW grew to 150,000 during his tenure. He went on to say that Rosselli/Borsos returned all but $150,000 of the $3M to the general fund, while SEIU only wants dues money…In other words, his clients’ actions were justified cause the “boogeyman” was out to get them. When he spoke of the new union NUHW, he admitted, that the name was not by accident, because they want members to think the new union is like the old union…even though it’s nothing close.
In his testimony as the first witness, Hal Ruddick explained to the jury how after the 2005 Colcord case where three former union staff tried to form another union while they were still employed by UHW, all employees and officers had to sign confidentiality agreements. He went on to tell how he and other incoming staff were unable to access the offices or find important files needed to represent members. When he first came out immediately after the trusteeship, Mr. Ruddick was staying in a hotel nearby and came back from work one evening only to find a threatening flier under his room door.
Quite disturbing was testimony of Latasha Winslow-Beavers, who was an organizer in the Kaiser Division. She told the jury how just prior to trusteeship she found herself directed by her superiors to dedicate her efforts to creating a “Rapid Response Team” that could be called at a moment’s notice to keep the International out! Only 30% of her time was to be for actual member representation. After trusteeship, she returned to work at Kaiser as a member where she was harassed by her former UHW director, defendant Jason Johnson.
As courthouses go, the Federal one in San Francisco is quite majestic, black & white photos adorn the marble walls. Here is where over 150,000 healthcare workers throughout California seek long due justice. Here is where the former leaders of SEUI-UHW will start to make themselves accountable for the alleged acts they committed prior to their removal from power.
To proceed, one must understand what this case is and is not about. This case is to answer the following questions. 1) Did the Sal Roseli, John Borsos, NUHW and other defendants sabotage the union by purposely trying to create an “ungovernable situation?” 2) Did the defendants misuse members’ dues money to start a new union while they were still employed by UHW. 3) In laying the groundwork for the new union, did the defendants fail to negotiate contracts and rescind contract extensions, leaving members at risk. 4) Did the defendants betray their fiduciary duties to the union, while they were STILL officers or employed by SEIU-UHW? What this case is NOT about, is a rehash of whether the trusteeship was good or bad, right or wrong. Sal, John and their followers do not get to come to court and try to paint themselves like some kind of “Robin Hood.” This much Judge Alsup made crystal clear.
As I was sitting in the gallery watching Day 1 of case # 2090400 SEIU v Sal Roselli, et al, a few thoughts came to mind. First, this judge is a straight shooter who will take no nonsense from either party. The outcome rests in the verdict of a jury that represents the community quite well. In it are students, bankers, and engineers that range from early 20’s to mid 60’s in age. I have faith that they will decide the outcome based on the merits of the arguments, the evidence, and the application of the law. It’s about the facts, just the facts.
My name is Oscar Medina and I’ve worked as a transporter at Summit Alta Bates Hospital in Oakland, California for seven years.
I’d like to share our experience at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center since SEIU took over our local union. In particular, I would like to explain what has happened with our contract and why we are choosing to organize with a new union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW).
Our previous experience in our union
Before our union was taken over, our bargaining team at ABSMC was large and democratic, with all members elected by our coworkers. Our bargaining team never accepted takeaways or subcontracting, and we bargained for the strong health benefits that healthcare workers deserve. During bargaining, we printed out our tentative contract agreements to share with our coworkers. Our philosophy was that workers are more powerful the more informed we are.
All that changed when Washington, D.C. officials took over our union, SEIU-UHW West, and replaced our elected leaders with their appointed trustees in January of 2009.
SEIU’s approach to bargaining and our vote
With SEIU, our new bargaining team did not communicate. Bargaining was closed to members for the first time. They didn’t share our tentative contract agreements with us. SEIU even demanded we sign a loyalty oath to SEIU simply to observe the bargaining process.
When it came time to vote, the one copy of our contract that SEIU provided us sat on the table where we went to vote. We were not allowed to take a copy of our contract and read it for ourselves before we voted. This never happened prior to SEIU’s trusteeship.
I asked an SEIU staffer about the changes to overtime in our contract and he said that there were no changes to overtime. When I pointed out to him the passage that changed our overtime, the SEIU staffer said, “Oh, I hadn’t seen that.” It’s no wonder that our managers at Sutter were telling us to vote yes.
Why SEIU’s contract with Sutter is bad for workers, our patients and our community
A healthcare workers’ union should not give away our healthcare benefits, but that’s just what SEIU has done. My coworkers and I will now have to pay to keep the health insurance and doctors we now have, some of us over $200 per month, or else accept a new substandard plan that penalizes workers who don’t join Sutter’s wellness program.
The new contract also changes the “reclassification” provisions in our contract. Reclassification is the process through which casual employees can qualify to become benefitted employees. The new contract that SEIU has bargained with Sutter will make it virtually impossible for casual workers working alongside us in our hospital to ever qualify to become benefitted employees.
Finally, SEIU has agreed to provisions that will allow subcontracting in our hospital. Subcontracting lowers wages and erodes the power of union work in our hospital and has real implications for patient care. The training and expertise we’ve developed in our workplace will be replaced by workers who are hired simply because they cost our employer less and don’t receive benefits.
As you can see, SEIU’s changes to our contract don’t just hurt us as union workers, they impact our workplace, the care of our patients and our whole community.
SEIU is the boss’s union, NUHW is our choice
Before SEIU’s trusteeship, we were informed, strong and stood up to Sutter in a democratic union that we controlled. With SEIU, it’s clear that Sutter and SEIU are friends. SEIU is the boss’s union and has agreed to concessions with Sutter that we would never have agreed to.
It is a shame how many of my coworkers voted for our contract without being able to read it and decide for themselves. As my coworkers learn what’s really in our contract, I am confident that they will join the majority of us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center who are organizing to build a union that we control at our hospital again.
Together with 100,000 caregivers from all over California, we’re organizing with a new union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), made up of our elected workplace leaders and the experienced negotiators who have helped us win for years.
Organizing with NUHW means that when we bargain with Sutter, the process will again be democratic, open and nothing will be hidden.
–Oscar Medina, Transport, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Oakland
::
{NUHW, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, is a vibrant and democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all. NUHW Voice features blog posts by workers from NUHW’s Our Voices page. You can follow NUHW on Facebook and Twitter.}
I’ve been a respiratory therapist at Saint Louise Regional Hospital for 18 years. I want to tell our community the truth about what’s been going on in our hospital over the last year, and why things are about to get better.
For the last eight years, my co-workers and I have been part of a labor union. You may have seen us on the sidewalk once or twice with picket signs, and wondered what was going on.
I helped organize the union because caregivers at Saint Louise were concerned about our patients as we worked harder and harder caring for more patients with not enough staff. We were tired of spending long hours caring for people in our community, only to come home unable to afford quality healthcare for our own families. We were tired of having no way to make things better.
Organizing the union was hard. We weren’t prepared for how hard hospital administrators would fight to keep us from having a voice in decisions. They threatened us with discipline and told us we’d lose everything – but that wasn’t true.
With our union, we finally had a way to solve the problems we all faced at work. We won contracts in 2002 and 2004 that improved patient care and helped attract and retain good, experienced caregivers.
But while we were moving forward here in Gilroy, trouble was brewing on the other side of the country. Officials of our union’s parent organization had hatched a plan to centralize power in Washington, D.C., and take control of negotiations away from healthcare workers like us.
The Service Employees International Union wanted more members and more dues money, they didn’t care who they hurt in the process. In time, we saw them make secret deals with nursing home companies to take away residents’ rights, and undermine many of the gains hospital workers had made in California. Then they tried to take our rights away.
Together in our local union, we stood up to SEIU and told them “No.” In retaliation, they took over our union last year, removed the co-workers we’d elected to represent us, and replaced our elected leaders with unaccountable staff from Washington, D.C.
SEIU took over negotiations at Saint Louise, and settled a contract that is nothing but takeaways – on scheduling, healthcare, job security, and more. They lied to workers about the deal, and made us vote on a contract we’d never seen. Employees at Saint Louise are sad and upset. Many of us have been targeted and threatened by SEIU.
It’s been painful to see this happen. I spent 10 months of my life under fire from management, organizing this union so that my co-workers and I would have a voice of our own. Now the bullying and intimidation are coming from our own union. We have no voice, and little protection if we speak out for our patients.
Saint Louise workers are taking our union back, by building a new union that belongs to us and no one else. A majority of us petitioned last year to join the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and an election is coming soon so we can make the change official. NUHW was founded by healthcare workers like us, and the experienced negotiators who helped us win our first two contracts are now supporting us in NUHW. Thousands of workers at Kaiser and at hospitals and nursing homes have already joined NUHW.
We’re voting NUHW to restore democracy and integrity to our union at Saint Louise, so we can keep standing up for quality patient care and better jobs in our community.
Kathleen Volle, registered respiratory therapist, Saint Louise Regional Hospital
::
{NUHW, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, is a vibrant and democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all.}
RNs at Kaiser Sunset LAMC voted 746 to 36 to join NUHW
Kaiser SoCal Psychsocial Professionals voted 717 to 192 to join NUHW
Kaiser SoCal Healthcare Professionals voted 189 to 29 to join NUHW
Our votes, joined with those of our brothers and sisters at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Los Alamitos Medical Center, The Sequoias-Portola Valley and Doctors Medical Center San Pablo, send a message to every healthcare worker seeking a voice in their workplace and a union that they control: in election after election, workers are choosing NUHW.
One year after the hostile takeover of our union by SEIU, we’ve sent a clear message with our votes today.
With 3,400 new members, NUHW is now California’s fastest growing union. The results of our elections also mean that NUHW has won 7 out of 9 competitive elections against SEIU and in those elections NUHW has decisively won the vote of healthcare workers. Our growth among previously unorganized workers also sends a powerful signal to the labor movement as a whole–four of NUHW’s eight victories this last year were among workers who were previously non-union; our organizing victory at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital was the nation’s biggest hospital election of 2009.
You can read a full description of NUHW’s organizing success in our Year One Report.
While those numbers are impressive, they can’t express the core reason we chose NUHW: we want a member-led union that we control–where our voice matters in our workplace and in the care of our patients.
We know that as elections are scheduled in workplace after workplace, an exodus of healthcare workers will join us in NUHW and leave SEIU. We also know that won’t happen automatically; it will take work.
Our victories were rooted in member leadership and strong organizing committees. As we celebrate we know that other workers are eagerly organizing to join us in NUHW.
There is so much for us to win and so much hope in this new year.
Today, as three Kaiser units in Souther California, we are so proud to stand with our brothers and sisters who voted before us and say, “WE are NUHW!”
Tessie Costales, RN, Kaiser Sunset/LAMC
Jim Clifford, Therapist, MS, Kaiser San Diego Psychiatry
Today marks the ballot count for elections held among three Southern California Kaiser chapters representing 2,300 healthcare workers.
The the three chapters are:
-Kaiser Sunset/LAMC RNs
-Southern California Kaiser Psychsocial Professionals
-Southern California Kaiser Healthcare Professionals
The counting should get underway soon, so here we go!
All parties have arrived at the Los Angeles Headquarters of the NLRB at 888 Figueroa Street and NUHW is represented with a strong showing of supporters who’ve gathered in anticipation of the ballot count.
We’ll have more updates as I get them. In the meantime, if you haven’t read Randy Shaw’s excellent article on this election, you should.
And of course, visit NUHW Solidarity on Facebook to catch the latest from NUHW activists.
Updated 9:30am: The ballots are being separated into three separate counts in three separate conference rooms at the NLRB. That means the count process will happen simultaneously for all three chapters. Things should get going soon.
Update 9:45am: The box containing RN ballots being opened now. It was signed by dozens of nurses when it was sealed on Jan. 7th.
Update 10:00am: The Healthcare Professionals ballot count room is now beginning process as well.
Update 10:15am: Word is: all three ballot counts are close to being underway. NUHW supporters awaiting word are hopeful and quiet.
Update 10:30am: RN counting underway!
Update 10:40am: Lots of people wearing RED and NUHW buttons at the NLRB today. One person on the ground reports: “What’s amazing about the crowd is there are NUHW activists from every corner of Southern California, Kaiser and Non-Kaiser alike.”
Update 10:50am: The Healthcare Professionals ballot count is now underway. The RN ballot count is in full swing as well.
Update 11:00am: Healthcare Professionals still counting. RN counting is well along.
Update 11:15am:Official report from RN ballot count: Kaiser Sunset RNs vote to join NUHW! Final Count: 746 NUHW, 36 SEIU 3 Neither
Update 11:20am: Kaiser Sunset/LAMC RNs vote to join NUHW!!!
Update 11:35am: Kaiser SoCal Healthcare Professionals vote to join NUHW!!
Report from the ground is that workers supporting NUHW are happy and celebrating.
Update 12:00 Noon: Kaiser Psychsocial Professionals ballot count is underway. No word yet on when we will hear the final result.
Update 12:30pm: while we are waiting, and it could be several hours (but maybe not), for the Psychsocial results here’s a link to an article on this election from In These Times.
Update 1pm: Word is that the intitial process is complete and they may begin counting Kaiser Psychsocial chapter ballots soon. It is the largest chapter of the three, with 1058 members who work at 89 different facilities and clinics across Southern California. We will keep you up to date.
Update 2:30pm: Labor Notes covers NUHW victories. And we’re still waiting on news from the Psychsocial Chapter ballot count.
Update 2:45pm: And…the Pyschsocial Chapter ballot count is beginning.
Update 3:15: Hundreds of ballots in the 1050 member unit have been counted. We’re getting close here. Remember, SEIU conceded defeat in all three elections before the first ballot was counted for this chapter.
Update 3:45 PM: NUHW is buzzing with excitement in expectation of three decisive victories. Here in the North the office is beginning to stream with visitors.
{Paul Delehanty works for NUHW, a vibrant & democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all. Follow us on Twitter and join us at Facebook.}
Workers at Santa Rosa Memorial hospital voted to join the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) last Friday after a six-year effort to form a union at their hospital.
The ballot count, in an election where 50%+1 of the votes were needed to win outright was:
NUHW has now won organized labor’s biggest hospital election victory of 2009, overcoming a joint “No Union” campaign mounted by management and SEIU.
a six-year campaign to form a union results in a vote for NUHW
Nancy Timberlake, a Telemetry Technician at Memorial, was overjoyed:
We are all so excited to finally have a voice to make our hospital a better place to work and better for our community. We stuck together for six years and we finally did it. I’m so relieved and so happy that we won.
-Nancy Timberlake, Telemetry Technician, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital
As Randy Shaw noted in Beyond Chron, it was the commitment of workers that won this election:
NUHW out-organized, out-strategized, and out-worked SEIU. But it became abundantly clear as I watched Election Day events that the main reason for NUHW’s success was this: pro-NUHW workers and staff wanted it more. SEIU gave no impression it ever cared about SRMH workers, using them as mere cannon fodder in its larger war against NUHW. [snip]
Anyone talking to Gabby Martinez, a NUHW supporter at St. Joseph’s Mission Hospital in Orange County who spent the last two weeks on the campaign, soon realizes that this fight in Santa Rosa was not about money. Nor was it about power or ego. Rather, it was about workers passionate for respect, dignity and fairness in the workplace. That’s why SEIU’s relentless attacks on NUHW leader Sal Rosselli, and his allegedly “corrupt” allies, fell flat. SEIU never focused on what workers cared about, while NUHW spent all of its time focusing on how a union could help workers lives.
::
SEIU’s expensive campaign yields 13 votes and a strong reaction
SEIU spared no expense in a campaign that won only 13 votes for SEIU-UHW but which undoubtedly boosted the no-union vote total through SEIU’s relentless attacks on NUHW in negative mailers and home visits. Workers reacted strongly to SEIU’s expensive and negative campaign against NUHW:
“We’re sorry that SEIU spent so much on a campaign where they weren’t invited. I feel sorry for all the members who put out all that money for SEIU’s campaign.”
-Sherrie Dickey, Clinical Lab Assistant, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital
Knowing how little support they had, SEIU even sent hundreds of paid staff to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital to picket the hospital in what was a clear anti-NUHW protest. Here was Memorial caregivers’ response:
Shaw calls the vote results a “disaster” for SEIU:
After a relentless campaign attacking NUHW, its staff, and its very right to call itself a union, SEIU lost 283-13 among workers desiring a union. It’s going to take a heckuva spinmeister for SEIU to explain to workers in other hospitals why they should trust SEIU over NUHW when those at SRMH clearly did not.
::
Community and Social Justice solidarity
The six-year Santa Rosa Memorial organizing campaign was marked by the involvement of local labor, political, clergy and social justice allies. Scholars, caregivers and leaders in the Santa Rosa faith and political communities all stood up to demand a fair election. NUHW’s social justice support even included a visit from UFW co-founder, Dolores Huerta: “Huerta visited workers on the first evening of voting, and then returned to the hospital at 6:00am the next day to urge the morning shift to back NUHW.”
Of course, it was the steady effort of the workers themselves that won this victory. Knowing it was a close election, every vote and every last effort counted towards securing the outcome.
::
You can support a democratic member-led union of healthcare workers by joining our Facebook Solidarity Group and following NUHW on Twitter.
{Paul Delehanty is an employee of NUHW, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, a vibrant and democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all.}
or six years caregivers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital have worked to form a union. After petitioning for an election this spring and waiting months for the NLRB to clear SEIU’s blocking charges, Memorial workers will have the chance to form their union with NUHW this Thursday and Friday.
The election at Santa Rosa has been an uphill battle featuring a David, the workers at Memorial, versus two Goliaths: St. Joseph Health System and an anti-NUHW campaign by SEIU…
a six-year campaign to secure a fair election
While union organizing campaigns are always difficult, what sets the Memorial campaign apart is that with the help of strong community support, Memorial workers had won an agreement to negotiate ground rules for a fair election from St. Joseph Health System. However, just as they secured a date for their election, caregivers watched that hard-won agreement unravel as SEIU, the third choice on the ballot, refused to agree to fair election terms. SEIU’s refusal to negotiate has meant that management has been free to run an anti-union campaign.
Fair election agreements, as outlined in this document from US Catholic Bishops, Respecting the Just Rights of Workers, specify that union elections be conducted with:
• Respect
• Equal Access to Information
• Truthful and Balanced Communications
• Pressure-Free Environment (for example, no 1-on-1’s with supervisors or mandatory anti-union meetings on paid time)
• Fair and Expeditious Process (for example, no dragging out or delaying the election for the purposes of defeating the union)
• Meaningful Enforcement of the Local Agreement
• Honoring Employee Decisions
Conduct agreements following the above principles had been the hallmark of successful new healthcare organizing drives undertaken by the current leadership of NUHW. In contrast, when workers are unprotected by conduct agreements, employers often engage in coercive and intimidating conduct that creates enormous hurdles for workers to form a union.
I was disappointed but not surprised when SEIU rejected the offer of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Monsignor Brenkle to mediate a fair election agreement, while NUHW accepted. Both SEIU and SJHS fear that if you have a free and fair election process – with no intimidation, retaliation, or negative campaigning – you will vote your conscience and select NUHW: the union whose leaders have stood by you for the past six years. SEIU’s actions have had the effect of encouraging SJHS to mount a very aggressive anti-union campaign.
::
Caregivers and the Santa Rosa community stand up to an anti-union campaign
Despite previously agreeing to negotiate for fair election guidelines, St. Joseph Health System seized on SEIU’s refusal to accept mediation and undertook an anti-union campaign at Memorial. Caregivers have been subject to 1-on-1 meetings with their supervisors in which they have received information on how to calculate the money that the union would “take” from their paycheck. Management has held “voluntary” meetings with Memorial caregivers where the subjects covered include anti-NUHW materials that come directly from SEIU’s website.
In response, scholars, caregivers, and leaders in the Santa Rosa faith and political communities have stood up to demand a fair election. In fact, a group of clergy and political leaders have formed a Fair Election Oversight Commission that includes Santa Rosa City Councilmember Veronica Jacobi and Monsignor John Brenkle, the pastor of St. Helena Catholic Church. Brenkle offered this assessment of the situation in Santa Rosa:
“The reports we’ve been hearing from workers at the hospital are truly disturbing, SEIU has prevented any ground rules from being set, and workers are facing a hostile atmosphere in what should be a place of healing and caring. When there is behavior by the hospital or by a union that interferes with their right to choose freely, we want workers to be able to report that to an independent body.”
::
SEIU’s conduct violates its own principles, and actively supports an anti-union campaign
SEIU’s conduct in Santa Rosa, coupled with the allegations of illegal tactics used by SEIU in the June 2009 Fresno homecare election, raise profound questions about what, if any, standards SEIU holds itself to. Given that SEIU had previously agreed to a nation-wide fair election agreement with the US Catholic Bishops, it has serious implications that SEIU has abandoned that agreement in principle and in practice in Santa Rosa.
SEIU-UHW trustee Eliseo Medina responded to NUHW’s offer to negotiate ground rules in Santa Rosa with the following letter:
While we would welcome the opportunity to reach an agreement on ground rules with the employer, we do not believe it serves the interests of Santa Rosa Memorial employees to include a third party whose standing as a labor organization is little more than wishful thinking.
When allies of the workers in Santa Rosa like the North Bay Labor Council, and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Monsignor Brenkle pointed out to Eliseo Medina that NUHW has the support of Santa Rosa Memorial’s workers, and that those workers, if nothing else, deserved a fair election in which to make their choice of union representation, Medina and SEIU’s response went beyond silence.
While rejecting efforts by religious leaders and labor allies across the country to intervene, SEIU launched a nasty anti-union campaign aimed at undermining workers’ support for their chosen union. Rather than encouraging workers to organize around their shared concerns, SEIU launched a smear campaign, bombarding workers with dozens of mailers including grotesque cartoons of union leaders loading bags of dues money into a truck. (See the mailer for yourself.)
It is precisely this kind of deceptive negative campaigning that a fair election agreement would forbid. In contrast, the workers organizing with NUHW have taken a different approach, an election campaign rooted in the workers’ own concerns and the reasons they’re forming a union.
That anti-union mailer is a symptom of how low SEIU has stooped in its “stop at nothing” campaign to defeat NUHW, a campaign that now seems bent on denying workers at Santa Rosa Memorial their chance to join any union.
::
a David against two Goliaths
Santa Rosa Memorial caregivers have worked for six years for this moment. Little did they know when they began that they would be up against both a health care corporation and an anti-NUHW drive by SEIU. As Randy Shaw writes in an excellent article summarizing the meaning of this election in Beyond Chron:
SRMH workers begin casting ballots Thursday, with votes tabulated Friday night. The outcome hinges on whether the massive anti-union campaign jointly waged by SEIU and management convinces enough workers to reject the demonstrable financial benefits and increased job security that comes with joining a union.
Shaw emphasizes, however, that a pro-union vote in Santa Rosa could “end labor’s year on a triumphant note.”
{Paul Delehanty is an employee of NUHW, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, a vibrant and democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all.}
Last June, in advance of a union election for 10,000 homecare workers in Fresno County, NUHW had built relationships with thousands of homecare providers through months of door-to-door organizing and the leadership of caregivers who had built the union in Fresno and who supported NUHW.
In response, on the eve of the election, SEIU brought 1,000 organizers to Fresno to conduct a “blitz” of home visits to overturn NUHW’s advantage.
Now, according to newly released sworn testimony from workers and SEIU staff whistleblowers who worked on the campaign in Fresno, SEIU staff committed serious violations of the rules in the Fresno at the direction of their superiors, including harassing, intimidating and threatening voters and handling workers’ ballots in violations of election law.
There were clear rules and state laws that governed the Fresno election:
-a union organizer should not open, handle, mark or alter a voter’s ballot
-a union organizer should not use threats of reprisal or force to intimidate voters
-a union organizer should not use intimidation and fear to deprive voters of a free choice in an election
-a union organizer should not obtain unsupervised access to voters’ marked ballots
As reported in the Fresno Bee on November 12th, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) filed a complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and organized a petition calling on PERB to investigate these serious charges regarding the treatment of workers in the Fresno election.
NUHW’s complaint is based not only on the sworn testimony of the Fresno caregivers. NUHW’s charge that SEIU crossed the line in Fresno is also based on the affidavits of two SEIU organizers who have left SEIU and become whistleblowers.
(For an excellent article providing some background on this story, please see author Steve Early’s article today in In These Times.)
::
SEIU Whistleblower testimony
Carlos Martinez is the SEIU staffer mentioned by the worker in the video. His testimony appears (Exhibit 8, pgs. 20-26) in NUHW’s Fresno complaint.
In his testimony Martinez spoke about trainings with SEIU leaders:
The speaker for SEIU at each of these meetings was Rebecca Malberg, the Temporary Director for SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Ben Tracey, the Lead Community Organizer assigned to Fresno, California. I personally was present for four (4) such meetings. At each of these meeting Malberg and Tracey went over the same points. Malberg told the campaigners to tell the voters that if they (the voters) voted for NUHW and NUHW won the election, the voters would lose their jobs as In-Home Support Service providers, that they (the voters) would lose their medical benefits and that they would no longer have the $20.00 co-pay provision with Kaiser; that they County would reduce the wages for providers to the minimum wage; and that providers would lose their hours and that those who provided In-Home Support Services for family members would no longer be able to care for such family members.
According to Martinez’ testimony, Rebecca Malberg also instructed Carlos Martinez to break state law:
During a conversation between myself and Malberg she stated to me that SEIU personnel should not touch, mark or change the ballots. However, as this statement was being made to me Malberg winked and asked me you understand right? I stated I understood her direction. I understood her direction to mean that SEIU should touch, mark or change the ballots if necessary to win the election but that no one was to know about it because it was not proper to do so. Malberg stated that the campaigners should make certain that all ballots supporting SEIU were actually mailed. Malberg warned campaigners, however, not to touch the envelopes. When asked how to make sure that envelopes were mailed, Malberg told campaigners to either take the voter to the postbox or to take the envelopes. Malberg instructed that if the campaigners took envelopes from voters, the campaigners should have the voters place the envelope in the purple bag supplied to campaigners by SEIU, and then to dump the envelopes into a mailbox directly from the bag. Using this process the campaigners would never actually touch the envelope.
According to the affidavit, another SEIU leader, Nathan Selzer, instructed Martinez to violate the rules, even giving instructions how to do so in a step by step process :
I was at a voter’s residence during the campaign when the voter showed me the ballot that the voter had marked. The ballot had been marked NUHW. I then presented all of the arguments that had been covered during the orientation meetings, and convinced the voter to give me her ballot. At that time I placed a a telephone call to Nathan Selzer for direction. I called Selzer because he was the person to whom I reported during the campaign. It had been instructed that all of the media releases made by SEIU out of the Fresno office had to go through Selzer. During the telephone call about the ballot in question Selzer instructed me to take the following steps, which I did. I crossed off the the mark on the ballot for NUHW and wrote next to that box the word “error.” I then drew an arrow to the box corresponding to a vote for SEIU and placed an “X” in that box. Finally, I wrote the words “this is the correct” next to the mark for SEIU. Selzer instructed me to take the above action because it would ensure that the vote would not be counted for NUHW.
In a mail-in secret ballot election the voter controls their vote. The voter marks the ballot, casts the vote, seals the envelope and mails the ballot themselves. It is against the rules for an organizer to even so much as touch ballot materials, much less put that ballot under their unsupervised control or mark the ballot.
The testimony of the second SEIU whistleblower, Richard O’Brien (Exhibit 14, pgs. 56-57), is a powerful testament to the grave misgivings some SEIU staffers had about what they were asked to do in Fresno.
Here’s what O’Brien testified:
I did not come forward before this time to personally offer a declaration out of fear of possible retribution from my employer SEIU Healthcare PA. I have recently found other employment in the Labor Movement. I did, however, strongly feel that unethical and unlawful conduct was taking place, which is why I provided [Alexandra Early] with a copy of the briefing document once she told me, after the election, that it would be an important piece of information for PERB to have.
I strongly agree with the characterizations made in [Early’s] declaration of the false and misleading nature of the claims that we SEIU staff were instructed to make by this briefing document. I have come forward because I believe that what SEIU staff were doing and the directives we were receiving was unethical.
::
Testimony from Fresno Caregivers
As mentioned above, the complaint filed by NUHW includes the testimony of two SEIU whistleblowers and the sworn affidavits of Fresno caregivers Adriana Gomez (Exhibit 9, pgs. 28-29), Sheri Davis (Exhibit 10, pgs. 31-33), Patricia Barbosa Rodriguez (Exhibit 11, pgs. 35-42), Mary Townsend (Exhibit 12, pgs. 43-45), Irma Orozco (Exhibit 13, pgs. 48-49) all giving clear examples of SEIU misconduct in the Fresno homecare election.
Here are direct quotes from their testimony:
Carlos asked to see how I had marked my ballot. I showed him the ballot, which had already been marked for the “Red” team. Carlos then told me that if the Red team won the election my hours might be cut. Carlos then took my ballot and made a mark for the SEIU team. Carlos also told me to put my initials on the ballot which I did.
–Adriana Gomez
I watched two persons dressed in purple T-shirts wearing “SEIU” badges open my mailbox which is located in front of my home just outside the gate. They removed something from my mailbox at which point I opened the door and they quickly closed the mailbox.
After catching the SEIU employees rifling through my mail they came to my door and showed me an envelope which they said was my ballot. They opened the ballot and showed it to me and showed me where to mark the ballot.
–Sheri Davis
On one day the purple people came to my home and told me that they would return every day until I voted for them.
On another day the purple people asked me if I knew that they were a big and powerful union in this country and that they could make sure my hours were taken away from me. In this same conversation they asked me if I was living in the United States legally because if not immigration might find out and I could be deported.
–Patricia Barbosa Rodriquez
On one particular day, two such persons dressed in purple with SEIU name tags knocked on my front door and I didn’t answer. The persons began to knock very hard on the front door repeatedly until my daughter answered the door. At the same time, my telephone rang and I answered. A man’s voice on the telephone identified himself as SEIU and stated that there were SEIU people at my home that would assist me in marking and mailing my ballot.
During the telephone conversation mentioned above I told the man on the phone that I was going to vote “red” and he became very forceful. He stated that if I voted red I would lose my hours and my benefits. He state that the red union did not have the money and the power that SEIU had, and that the red union would spend all the money it received from members without providing any benefits.
I spoke with the persons at my front door, who identified themselves as SEIU employees, and were waving a piece of paper at me which I believe was my ballot.
During the time when I was speaking to the man on the telephone as well as the people at my door I was frightened and felt very pressured by their behavior as well as the man’s statement that I would lose my hours and benefits.
The man on the telephone frightened me and I believed that my ability to make a living and support my family was at risk unless I voted for SEIU as he told me to.
–Mary Townsend
The people from the purple team told me that they were very powerful people and that they had lots of money to do whatever they want and that they were the only union that could protect me.
They told me that if I did not vote for them I will lose my hours, my job and all my benefits that they were given me already.
–Irma Orozco
::
Conclusion
The proper response to this testimony should be to call for an investigation.
The need for an investigation into SEIU’s conduct during the Fresno election is urgent and compelling. At the final ballot count, SEIU held a razor-slim margin of 200 votes out of 6,000 cast with hundreds of uncounted ballots. The free choice of workers to decide which union represents them in Fresno is at question.
If these serious allegations regarding SEIU’s conduct in the Fresno election are not investigated, what can workers seeking fair elections free of intimidation anywhere expect?
::
Sign the petition
What NUHW is asking is that the public consider the testimony of Fresno caregivers and SEIU whistleblowers and join California healthcare workers and their allies to call on the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to conduct a thorough investigation of SEIU’s conduct in Fresno.
We are confident that an investigation of the Fresno election will show that SEIU’s organizers broke state law in their interactions with voters and that SEIU leaders specifically instructed their organizers to do so.
Please join us and SIGN THE PETITION calling on the PERB to conduct a thorough investigation of SEIU’s conduct in the Fresno election.
::
{Paul Delehanty is an employee of NUHW, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, a vibrant and democratic movement of healthcare workers, dedicated to dignity, justice, and healthcare for all. You can express your solidarity with the workers building NUHW by joining our FACEBOOK page and following us on TWITTER.}
Per reports from Randy Shaw from the UNITE-HERE convention in Chicago, the entire labor movement has allied with UNITE-HERE in opposition to SEIU’s raids into UNITE-HERE’s jurisdictions.
Laborers President Terrence O’Sullivan described SEIU’s conduct as “deplorable,” and said “we didn’t join Change to Win to raid and hijack another union’s members.” Change to Win leaders James Hoffa of the Teamsters and Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers also pledged support, while Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers (one of the only two international presidents that SEIU claimed back its position) now supports UNITE HERE. UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm defiantly castigated SEIU as “the bosses union,” and said that his workers are now in a “two headed fight: a fight with the boss and a fight with the boss’s lackey union.” Wilhelm said there has been “real widespread revulsion” throughout the labor movement against SEIU’s conduct, and the UNITE HERE convention has announced a new labor movement unity, with SEIU alone on its own.
One day after 15 international union leaders vowed to provide “material and moral” support to UNITE HERE’s defense against SEIU raids, the AFL-CIO sent a letter to the UNITE HERE convention condemning “all raiding of organized workers by any union.” This letter represents a dramatic shift in position for the labor federation, which previously had been advised by its general counsel to stay out of the fight between SEIU and UNITE HERE. Adding to building momentum against SEIU’s conduct were scathing words from Operating and Engineers President Vincent J. Giblin, who described SEIU President Andy Stern as the “Darth Vader of the labor movement” and who vowed to provide “every resource” of his union, including strike benefits, to help UNITE HERE in its struggle. It was also revealed on the Convention’s second day that former UNITE HERE President and now SEIU Executive Vice-President Bruce Raynor had shifted $23 million in cash from UNITE HERE to his new union prior to his departure; this prompted UNITE HERE’s Jim Dupont to lead the crowd in a roaring chant “They say arbitrate, we say incarcerate.”
This is a significant moment for labor. The time for progressives not taking sides in an “internal labor dispute” is over. This is a fundamental disagreement between “bottom up” and “top down” unionism. This is a disagreement between those who would organize workers at the grassroots level and those, like SEIU, who would hire consultants to raid jurisdictions organized through the hard-fought efforts of workers over decades.
The AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Teamsters, and Randi Weingarten of the AFT (just one week ago a purported firm Andy Stern ally) are just a few of the organizations that have signed on to a statement opposing SEIU’s raiding tactics against UNITE-HERE and pledging support and resources to defend UNITE-HERE from SEIU and any employer intending to take advantage of SEIU’s attacks on UNITE-HERE.
Why is this important?
It’s important for two reasons.
For one, most significantly, this shows that the entire labor movement has stepped up and said to Andy Stern, “Enough!” Stern, under the guise of unifying the labor movement actually used his powerful position as the head of SEIU to destabilize the movement and aggregate power to himself. Stern threatened to raid UNITE-HERE’s core jurisdictions if UNITE-HERE did not accept his terms regarding Workers United. Stern’s threats to raid UNITE-HERE’s gaming and hotel jurisdictions, however, proved to be a bridge too far. When labor leaders like Randi Weingarten, Thomas Buffenbarger, Gerald McEntee, James Hoffa and Terrence O’Sullivan come together in opposing Andy Stern, folks should take heed. That’s a big deal.
What this development points up is a unity movement within labor. That unity is arising, however, in opposition to Andy Stern, not under him.
Further, what the UNITE-HERE convention shows the netroots is something simple. We’ve been lied to. SEIU has consistently implied that Andy Stern and SEIU spoke for the US labor movement as a whole. That is simply not true and has never been true. We were invited to fall in line behind Stern and SEIU without ever asking questions about SEIU’s conduct with regard to UNITE-HERE or, here in California, SEIU’s trusteeship of the reform movement coming out of SEIU-UHW West. Most significantly, we were never given the truth about Stern’s top down model regarding organizing and bargaining, an approach that locked workers out of the bargaining process.
Today, neutrality regarding SEIU is no longer possible.
SEIU has systematically lied to the netroots about their raiding into UNITE-HERE, about SEIU’s attempt to thwart a reform movement coming out of SEIU-UHW and Andy Stern’s agenda in favor of top-down, predatory unionism.
What Randy Shaw documents from Chicago is a sea change within the labor movement. Labor is uniting in opposition to Andy Stern. Even within SEIU, there are powerful voices arising in opposition to Stern’s tactics. The 100,000 California healthcare workers committed to building NUHW and leaving SEIU are just the tip of the iceberg.
The question for the progressives, then, is whether and for how long to continue to embrace neutrality in a labor dispute that the labor movement as a whole has now spoken to with unanimity.
