The SEIU donated $500,000 to the No on 1A campaign, the first truly major expenditure by any group against the ballot measures on May 19.  The No on 1A campaign now hold about $1 million in their bank account.  While this is dwarfed by the money dumped into the Yes campaign by, among other groups, the CTA, billionaires like Jerry Perenchio, and Chevron, given the attitudes of the electorate even a little money on the No side could be enough to stop the onslaught and tip these measures.  Politicos understand this fairly well:

“It just got a lot harder,” said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and a former Republican strategist.

“The biggest advantage the proponents have had all along is the lack of a well-funded opposition,” Schnur said. “Historically, you don’t need to outspend ballot measures to beat them, and in a low-turnout election this is a decent amount of money.” […]

“Right now there’s a tremendous tendency to reject anything out of Sacramento,” said Republican strategist Dave Gilliard.

Good for the SacBee, by the way, for pointing out that Prop. 1A “has a long-term impact and would not directly alter the budget until 2011.”

I’ve been speaking at a lot of grassroots Democratic groups against these measures, purely on the public policy merits, and the overriding sentiment I’m seeing out there lines up with what Dave Gilliard says there.  The disconnect between the establishment and the grassroots is truly striking.  People don’t feel like their concerns have been met, either this year or for the last thirty, really.  They see another layer of budget dysfunction forced upon the voters that fails to get at the structural problems.  And now, they’re starting to see their voices manifested with action, as well as the mother’s milk of California politics, money.

Now more than ever a comprehensive U.S. immigration reform is key in helping rebuild our country and giving back American working families the prosperity and equality they deserve. When we allow a group of people to be exploited and discriminated against, it negatively impacts American workers by driving down wages, benefits and working conditions.

President Obama recently announced he will pursue immigration reform that would allow the millions of undocumented workers already living in the country now to “come out of the shadows.” For that to happen, they need to be able to speak up and report abuses, organize and come to the bargaining table without fearing deportation. The reality is that most of these millions of workers have already established families in their communities and are part of our society as much as any U.S.-born American.

According to the federal government, more than 50 percent of U.S. farm workers laboring are undocumented. If we were to deport all undocumented farm workers, it would mean the collapse of the agricultural industry as we know it. That’s why the UFW has worked together with the agricultural industry for the last 10 years to craft a bipartisan approach that would ensure a legal work force for U.S. agriculture.

This compromise resulted in the AgJobs bill that would give undocumented farm workers presently here the right to earn legal status by continuing to work in agriculture. AgJobs is the practical and equitable solution in addressing grower concerns about labor shortages and the insecurity that makes farm workers so vulnerable to abuse.

Undocumented farm workers possess essential skills needed to maintain the viability of the agricultural industry. By allowing them to work here without molestation, we can ensure growers have a legal and available work force, and prevent unscrupulous employers from abusing the workers.

Blog by UFW President Arturo S. Rodriguez, cross-posted from The Hill

At The Plum Line, Greg Sargent takes a look at Dianne Feinstein’s lack of support for the Employee Free Choice Act.  She remains the only Congressional Democrat from California not to co-sponsor the bill, and according to her spokesman, she’s looking for the mythical bipartisanship pony.

“I have thought for some time that the way to approach this issue is by trying to see if there can’t be a compromise between the business community, the agriculture community and labor. This is an extraordinarily difficult economy and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue. I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor.”

This is complete nonsense.  Employers are firing workers who try to organize.  They intimidate workers into voting against their better interests.  One out of every four unions elections were marred by illegal firings in 2007.  I don’t know how you can possibly reconcile the two sides given that scenario.

Furthermore, the invocation of the “difficult economy” is another red herring.  Sen. Tom Harkin has already done away with this nonsense by pulling out his history book.

The bill’s supporters are pointing to the downturn as the ultimate proof of their arguments that labor’s decline has helped put the economy out of balance and that only by restoring workers’ purchasing power can the nation return to broadly shared prosperity.

“In 1935, we passed the Wagner Act that promoted unionization and allowed unions to flourish, and at the time we were at around 20 percent unemployment. So tell me again why we can’t do this in a recession?” said  Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), invoking the pro-labor changes of the New Deal. “This is the time to do it. This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves.”

Because of Sen. Specter’s announced opposition, the Employee Free Choice Act faces an uphill battle.  But at the very least, Californians should expect that all of their representatives in Washington would understand the need to strengthen unions as a means to strengthening the overall middle class, increasing wages and BOOSTING, not hurting the economy.  Feinstein has a choice to make, and you can sign this letter from the Courage Campaign to let her know you’re watching her.

The biggest news out of the CA-10 race today is that, according to Lisa Vorderbrueggen, both Ellen Tauscher and friend of Calitics Rep. George Miller have endorsed Sen. Mark DeSaulnier for the future special election.  That’s a fairly big deal.  There are essentially four power structures in the political scene CA-10, and DeSaulnier has swallowed up three – Tauscher, Miller, and Tom Torlakson.  Considering that he’s the chair of the Senate Labor Committee, the fourth power structure, the local unions, should be his as well.

Nevertheless, other prospective candidates are making news as well.  Joan Buchanan’s operatives clearly dropped a poll to Politico, showing her leading DeSaulnier narrowly:

The poll shows Buchanan leading DeSaulnier 21 to 18 percent, with Republican San Ramon mayor Abram Wilson at 14 percent and former GOP Assemblyman Guy Houston at 13 percent.  

Neither Republican has yet expressed interest in the race.

Despite DeSaulnier’s experience representing the area in the state legislature, both Democrats have comparable name recognition, according to the poll. Buchanan is recognized by 34 percent of voters, while 31 percent offer an opinion on DeSaulnier.

That was a survey of 400 voters with a high margin of error (4.9%), so I wouldn’t take it too seriously.  Buchanan would see institutional support dry up fast, but could leverage an outside group like EMILY’s List.

The insufferable California Blue Dog is floating that former Mod Squad member Asm. Joe Canciamilla, who previously announced he was considering the race for Attorney General, might jump in, but DeSaulnier hasn’t just beaten him in the past, he’s beaten his whole family (DeSaulnier beat Canciamilla’s wife in a Senate primary in ’08).

Meanwhile, there’s “one of SF’s top political minds,” if he does say so himself, Adriel Hampton, who is intent on dropping a press release a day to get reporters to chase coverage.  Yesterday he urged passage of S. 582, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, which is actually a solid policy goal to cap interest rates on credit cards and loans, sponsored by Bernie Sanders.  Today he went hard negative against DeSaulnier:

California 10th Congressional District candidate Adriel Hampton (D-Dublin) is not mincing words in his criticism of State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier considering leaving the Legislature just months after being elected. If Sen. DeSaulnier were to resign his seat, it would result in a minimum of 112 day period where an additional Republican vote would be need to pass a budget or raise revenue under California’s unique 2/3 requirement.

“When DeSaulnier ran for his office, he signed up for a four year hitch, not a few-month fling,” Hampton said. “His fickle recklessness would strengthen the Republican bargaining position and could cost Californians billions in cuts to health care, education, and public safety.”

Restaurant-owner DeSaulnier was sworn in to the state senate just last December. If he runs for Congress, it would be the third different office he has run for in as many years. If legislative Republicans believe he has a chance of winning, it would incentivize them to stall a budget compromise until after the election, further extending the period of gridlock that would result in Sacramento by his candidacy.

There’s a lot about this that is arrogant and ridiculous (“restaurant-owner DeSaulnier” is kind of a lame epithet to put on a guy who’s been elected by these same constituents multiple times), but Hampton raises a point I raised as soon as Tauscher announced she was leaving.  The merry go-round of special elections will put Democrats in the legislature down a body or two well into next year, and in the case of Buchanan threatens the loss of the seat.  Now, this logic maybe appeals to a junkie like me, but my guess is it will have approximately no appeal to those inside the district, who will want to pick the best candidate for the job.  In addition, this is a hard negative message that only argues for someone not in the legislature to be elected, and since the field has in no way assembled fully, I don’t see that as a political winner.  Not to mention the pose that DeSaulnier is a fickle part-time legislator made by someone who apparently is still working a full-time job and thinking he can run for Congress at the same time.

Oh, and Sully Sullenberger won’t run, either.  In case you were wondering.  But there are more candidates who may enter, FYI.

In the January Assembly district caucuses to elect delegates to the California Democratic Party, many people reported that union members showed up to support delegates running on a slate for Senator John Burton for CDP chair. Many of these delegate candidates were also union members. I spoke to several of these union members running for delegate at my AD caucus. Both seemed like fine people. Clearly they were dedicated union members. Neither of them were Democratic activists. They had no links to or experience with the party. But, in my district, both are now delegates–or, officially, members of the state Democratic central committee.

I am a firm supporter of bringing new people into the party. But I find this development disturbing for several reasons.

First, in other districts, these new delegates forced out dedicated Democratic activists who have contributed substantially to the state party. The people who voted for them did not do so because they cared about the future of the party, but because their unions asked them to.

Second, these “slate” delegates got elected for only one reason–to vote for Senator Burton for chair. Once they have cast their vote, will they contribute anything to their local party? Or to the state party? Or will they simply disappear, having performed the task their union asked them to? I fear the latter.

We elected one new delegate in my district that I supported enthusiastically. A college student, she is the president of the College Democratic club at her school. She is an energetic volunteer in her county party. And just the kind of new voice the California Democratic Party needs.

But Senator Burton and his labor allies have used the recent delegate elections to achieve their own goals–not to bring new activists into the party. In so doing, they have deprived the party of the commitment and experience of the delegates their “shills” displaced, and of the opportunity to bring in more dedicated activists like the College Dem from my district. The lack of these true Democratic activists in our state party could damage our ability to operate effectively around the state for years to come.  

Here’s a list of all the co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to join a union and harder for union-busting companies to intimidate and harass their own employees.  Since it was introduced on Tuesday, it has gained 223 co-sponsors in the House and 40 in the Senate.  If you click on California, you’ll get a rundown of every lawmaker in the state who has endorsed.

Do you notice who’s missing?

Her name rhymes with Schmeinstein.

And yes, she’s the ONLY ONE of the entire Democratic delegation who hasn’t endorsed.

Senator Feinstein’s Los Angeles office may not be aware of this fun fact.  Give them a call at (310) 914-7300, and ask why she’s the only California Democrat to withhold her support of the Employee Free Choice Act.

(what’s more, if you’re a union member, call your local supervisor and make sure they let their superiors know.  I’m sure the California Labor Federation would be interested in the news.)

“We are the union, the mighty mighty union!”

I hear the chants in my head.  When I need them, they come to me.

This line is especially true right now for the former members of United Healthcare Workers-West.   We are the union.  A week and a half ago, many of my sisters and brothers and I slept in our union hall, before the hostile takeover by our International, SEIU.  As we held our hall, my sisters and I worked to maintain our union.  We fended off anyone SEIU sent to weasel their way in without warrants.  We planned how we’d move forward during an imminent occupation:  how we’d communicate with each other; how we would reach deep into our membership to take our union back.  

It occurred to me that night hunched over the bare desks in the communication department office, the union solidarity posters hanging behind me, that though we had been member leaders up to that point, stewards and activists for union democracy, something had changed.  This was a sort of matriculation, graduation day.  

This was not the sort of matriculation I wanted, but in this moment of crisis, while SEIU was preparing to take our hall, after they’d put us into trusteeship for refusing to go along with their undemocratic processes, in this moment when our staff, some of the smartest, most committed, best people I know, were told by SEIU to leave the Hall and were preparing for their “interviews”  (interrogations), our elected officers had been fired for being too strong and too empowered, too unified.  In this dark and outrageous moment in the life of our union and the history of the labor movement, I sensed a quiet determination, a victory.

When I became an active member-leader in the Kaiser Medical Social Work chapter, I learned the skills of organizing and noticed that they were the same as those of social work.  The focus is not on giving answers but empowering people to ask the right questions.  The central tenets of both social work and organizing involve listening and beginning where the person is:  giving them the tools:  knowledge of the contract, worker’s rights, the Kaiser labor management partnership, and engendering confidence in the real source of power:  their sisters and brothers.

I have, in the social worker style of tiresome self-analysis, become my own case study for this transformation from un-empowered, un-unified, social worker to empowered leader.  I watched myself in the last year and a half, learn the skills of organizing, begin to use them in small ways, from shadowing my mentor to leading negotiations in one short year, from being anxious about speaking to small groups of workers to speaking comfortably to groups of 300.   There were many small steps along the way, but what amazed me most was the rare combination of talented and dedicated UHW staff and elected members whose vision and integrity permeated all levels of the Union and the impact that this environment had on me and my sisters and brothers.

Any good social worker knows that the main goal of our interventions is to render ourselves redundant:  to help people learn to help themselves so well that we are no longer needed.  A good organizer’s goal is the same:  to empower workers and worksite leaders so that they no longer need the organizer/representative to solve their problems.  

I drank another cup of stale coffee and planned with my sister in the union hall until the middle of the night during the hostile takeover of one of SEIU’s strongest and most effective locals, my local.   As our elected leaders and staff leaders were being fired, we stepped into their places.  Since we could no longer talk to our staff leaders in exile, we turned to each other.  We called up the words of leaders who have said:  “in every interaction we should be thinking ‘how does this build the union?'”  SEIU would do well to consider that question, rather than the question of how to disassemble my union.  

We are moving to decertify from SEIU, to form our own Union, to maintain our current union.  When we leave our autocratic International for the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), it’ll be a historic day for the labor movement.  But that moment will be only one of the significant moments that happen everyday within the former UHW.  One of them was in that Union Hall that night, when we turned to each other, embodying all that UHW stood for.  

In this dark moment when SEIU appears to have taken what we have built, we know that they can take the hall, but they can’t take us.  We are the union. We will be the union.  We’ll be the most democratic, strongest union because of this moment and all of the moments still to come.   We are the union, the mighty mighty union.  SEIU, who are you?  Whoever you claim to be or to represent, you have not built the union.  You have tried to dismember it.   We are building the union right now.  You’ve lost already, and we’ve already won.