Assembly Bill 52 is a modest bill that would give teeth to the State Insurance Commissioner's oversight of health insurance rates in California.
On a day when the SF Chronicle is reporting that Kaiser Permanente, flush with more than $5 billion in profits over the last 27 months, is poised to raise rates on 300,000 California Kaiser policyholders by an average of 11%, Wendell Potter, writing in the Huffington Post, and Lee Fang, writing at Think Progress, are investigating Kaiser's financials more deeply and shining a light on the "coalition" that big insurers have built to fight AB 52 and kill the rate review bill before it becomes law.
January 2009 was a watershed moment in our nation's history. As we gathered to celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama, members of my union felt a powerful sense of accomplishment. Together we had worked long hours and covered many miles to elect a president who would represent working people instead of big corporations.
But those days were also bittersweet for me and thousands of health care workers in California. As President Obama took the oath of office, SEIU's President Andy Stern had begun a process to remove me and other health care workers from our elected positions, suspend our local union's constitution, and put his own officials in charge.
My name is LaNeta Fitzhugh and I work as a Registered Nurse (RN), at Kaiser Sunset Los Angeles Medical Center. Kaiser Sunset is one of the largest hospitals in the nation. We serve hundreds of patients every day on seven floors, and RNs are involved in every aspect of the care of our patients. The voice of RNs at Kaiser Sunset is central to the proper function of our hospital.
This January, RNs at Kaiser Sunset voted 20 to 1 to leave SEIU and to express our voice with the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW).
When people ask why my co-workers and I voted to join our union, our answer is simple.
When the trial started two weeks ago, it was clearly stated what this was all about. It was about rules, the dangers of thinking you can be above them, and the consequences for then refusing to follow them. In his opening arguments, Gary Kholman, attorney for the 150,000 members that were abandoned by Rosselli and his co-defendants, told the jury that he will lay out evidence that showed how the defendants, in reaction to "constitutional mandates" placed upon them by the international, began to plot and put into motion a set of premeditated actions in response. The sole purpose of these actions by the defendants was to pilfer the union's treasury, hijack the local's valuable information network, and ultimately steal members away and put them into a new organization with shady beginnings. In the two weeks that followed those opening statements by Mr. Kholman, witness after witness after witness came forward to testify. They told how they were recruited to either lie to and cheat members out of due representation, or how they were intimidated into cooperation. Mountains of documents, many from the defendants' own hands, were put into evidence. We read secret e-mails, task lists, minutes and notes of meetings, correspondence, and watched videos that showed the evolution of this "great plan" of these 26 OUTSIDERS that sought to destroy our union of over eighty years.
In his closing arguments today, Kholman again reminded the jury what this has always been about rules and consequences. These defendants always had three honorable options before them;
- Accept the rules and abide by them
- Work within the system to change the rules
- Leave the organization
Instead, they chose a fourth, dishonorable option, to defy the rules and breach the rules that govern our union. The means they used to reach that end were equally dishonorable! Taking members' dues monies off the books into a secret slush fund, pirating our confidential information into a shadow database, and creating secret groups that held clandestine meetings. Appalling as that is, the worst offense they made against us was to lie to us and then recruit us as pawns in their sinister scheme.
In society, and the organizations within them, rules are what bind us together and keep us from falling into chaos. Regardless how one felt about the 2000 Bush v Gore election drama, it was because rules were in place that an "orderly transition" occurred from one president to the next. Hard as it may have been for Gore to accept the result, can you imagine what shambles our democracy would be put into if he had decided to not accept or abide by it and instead conspired to have the "blue states" secede? That's what Rosselli and the others are trying to do.
For NUHW, It's Still About Distraction and Distortion:
Two weeks ago Dan Siegel, attorney for Rosselli and his co-defendants, chose to talk about what this trial was NOT about. He wanted to talk about Andy Stern, his salary and a book he wrote. He wanted to preach about democracy and tyranny. He told us how his clients' actions were "motivated by patient care." These attempts to distract the jury only got him stiff admonishments from the judge who then instructed him to follow the rules. Throughout the trial, he offered no evidence to refute our claims against his clients...only spin. He put forth witnesses that proudly verified claims of violent actions, then insinuated the victims were to blame. On the stand, his clients broke down, and Rosselli himself became as nervous as a "sinner in church!"
In his closing arguments today, Siegel offered nothing new...only spin. He spoke about gazing at the stars and pondered the horoscope signs they formed. He dipped his feet into various conspiracy theories like the government's involvement in 9-11 and the CIA's role in the Kennedy assassination. From this, he gathered that SEIU our union of over eighty years, is like Iran. He defended his clients' obstructive actions as mere "expression," saying they cannot be held accountable for them, but then referred to them as "terrible conspirators." Mr. Siegel obviously has never stepped foot in any of our facilities, this much was evident when he had the nerve to ask "Did anything horrible really happen?" The answer to that Mr. Siegel, YES!!! Ask any of the 150,000 members your clients left behind.
With both sides resting their cases, a milestone has been reached in the federal lawsuit against ousted SEIU-UHW President Sal Rosselli and his 25 co-defendants. The case is being tried in federal court in San Francisco before U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup.
Ms. "Ungovernable Situation" Takes The Stand:
Barbara Lewis, author of the now infamous "Ungovernable Situation" memo, which plotted out leaving our union in chaos after they were ousted from power, took the stand. From her we learned how she spent $41, 871 at Kinko's to print decertification petitions. When asked if she put her staff on "Code Orange," she replied that she could not recall. However, a January 22, 2009 memo was shown where she instructed trusted staff to:
- Always be accessible by phone
- Not to plan for any sleep - OUCH!
- Be on 24 hour standby
And yes, she did say "Code Orange." She was asked if as high ranking officer of UHW how she felt about trusteeship being imposed to which she said very saddened by the whole situation. Mr. Kohlman then showed a video clip where she called it "A great day for our union." Ooops.
"Define Forming"
NUHW co-founder John Borsos was one of the final witnesses in the case. Despite his lack of recollect, the jury was shown a memo where lawyers advised him to "lay low" about active resistance to the international. He was told to "launder" it through an intermediary. At one point Mr. Kohlman asked him if one still works for one union and uses the resources of that union to start forming a new union, would he consider that stealing. His answer "depends on how you define forming." He then insisted that despite the similarities between this case and the Colcord case of 2005, it's a different situation. Different, apparently, because he's the one on the hot seat.
(Colcord case: In 2005 three organizers while still employed by UHW used union resources such as the member database among other stuff to form a new union to organize EMT workers at AMR. Rosselli and UHW sued the three and won a judgment against them. In this trial, UHW makes the same claim, that Rosselli and the other defendants used UHW resources to form NUHW while they were still the top officers/employees of UHW.)
Tomorrow we will hear the closing arguments and the judge will give the jury instructions they will use for their deliberations.
In finishing up his cross examination of UHW Finance Director, Edgard Cajina, NUHW attorney asked why UHW is seeking damages for lost dues from NUHW when the dues are ultimately owed by the workers. Mr. Cajina explained that the cost involved of taking action to collect dues from individual members would be greater than the amount collected and that it would not be feasible. As if it were not enough to ask that the union sue individual members, Mr. Siegel went as far as to suggest that shop stewards should go around their facilities collecting money from their co-workers.
"Don't Spend Time With the Members:"
We heard testimony from more UHW staff members that were told to turn out members to meetings, create lists with our confidential information, and teach members how to be confrontational. Abby Reeve explained how working for defendant Barbara Lewis she could dedicate only 30% of her time to representing members at grievances and bargaining. May Ann Durazo from the Homecare Division was invited by defendant Gabe Krystal to attend a "secret meeting" in early January 2009 where Rosselli was to speak about a "great plan." But she started to ask questions, and the defendants didn't like that so they withdrew their invitation.
Durazo continued to say how in early January 2009, she found herself dedicating most of her time (90%) to charting facilities, handing out flyers, and encouraging members to turn out for meetings, versus only 10% doing actual representational work like processing grievances. When she expressed concern to her division director, defendant Vellardita, he told her, "Don't spend time with the members." Alex Espinoza from the hospital division added to this pattern when he told the jury how he too found himself representing members less and representing the interests of Sal more. He went on to say how a couple days before the trusteeship, and after the attack on the LA office where a mob stole confidential documents, defendant Lewis confronted him about information coming her way where he was "assessed as a 1," meaning he had been labeled an SEIU supporter. Lewis then quizzed him about his employment plans after a trusteeship. Not making any accusations how this information came her way, but read yesterday's post about witness (Nancy Stengel's) testimony about the raid on the L.A. SEIU office and who they gave stolen documents to.
Lynn Templeton an operations coordinator at the Oakland office told how defendant Phyllis Willett told her to figure out the costs of buying the cell phones we mentioned yesterday. She continued to say how at Willet's instruction she was to alter the contract for these phones so they would be purchased by the Patient Education Fund (the bogus fund set up by the defendant's with $3 million of our dues money) not SEIU-UHW. In her testimony, she also told how Willett told her to remove from her office documents relating to the PEF.
Philip Rodokanakis, an expert in the field of computer forensics, recounted his analysis of the computer used by John Borsos. He determined that there were "many irregularities." Of 5,700 e-mails that were "double deleted" he was able to recover 3,000. In the computer used by Fred Seavey he discovered that the user registry file was missing, also gone were event logs and Windows was (re)installed in February 2009. The biggest surprise was the discovery of a document he named "NUHW Staff List." This document was created on January 21, 2009, six days before trusteeship when Seavey was still employed by SEIU-UHW. For the past week the defense has maintained that they were just expressing opposition to the International's decision to move 65,000 long term care workers out of UHW and the trusteeship that followed their refusal, but this demonstrates how they were already working to undermine the union they worked for and betray us, the members.
Dumbest Question of the Day;
While cross examining Mr. Cajina, a native of Nicaragua, NUHW attorney Jose Luis Fuentes asked him, "Did you know Daniel Ortega?" FYI..Ortega is the current president of Nicaragua and also served in that capacity from 1985-1990.
My name is Shirley Nelson. I work as Certified Nursing Assistant and I have been a caregiver at Kaiser Redwood City Hospital for 42 years.
I would like to thank the community of readers here at Calitics for providing me an opportunity to share my point of view about SEIU's civil lawsuit against 26 union reformers.
They say every coin has two sides, well, so does every case in court...
Shakers & Makers - this was the name of a covert group of senior staffers in the Homecare Division that was formed in 2008 for the purpose of creating lists and planning for a possible trusteeship. Leon Chow, a one time member of this group, told the jury how he was recruited to identify and build a group of leaders to fight SEIU. At defendant John Vellardita's direction, the group compiled a list of homecare workers and distributed it to select loyal followers who would use them to phone bank members...from their homes. This was a change in past practice when phone banking was done in the union hall and members' personal informational was closely guarded.
The S&M group communicated through private e-mail accounts so no record of subversive activities would be on the UHW server. After "loyal" member followers were identified, Mr. Chow was instructed to perform a 1:1 assessment to confirm their loyalty to the defendant Sal Rosselli. These assessments were NOT to be turned over to clerical staff at UHW so that the assessments would not be entered in the UHW database.
At Vellardeta's instruction, UHW staff members who were in Shakers & Makers were not to "expense" their out-of-pocket costs for this group's activities. They were furthermore instructed to not enter their S&M participation in their weekly activity reports. So covert were the activities of this group that in preparation for a meeting on January 19, 2009 (a week before trusteeship) Vellardita instructed members who were driving to a meeting that day to not leave directly from the union's Oakland office just in case they were under surveillance. Mr. Chow went on to testify that in a January 10, 2009 senior staff meeting, Rosselli brought forth the issue of "disaffiliation" from SEIU. A template for a disaffiliation petition was presented at this meeting. Rosselli did acknowledge that it would be improper for officers of the union to raise this issue, so, wink, wink, it would have to come from rank & file members. Mr. Chow will be testifying more about that tomorrow...guess what followed?
In other testimony, Lisa Gude, who was trying to negotiate nursing home contracts after the trusteeship was imposed, found it difficult to find necessary bargaining notes and other documents. Only after a court ordered him to do so did Mark Kipfer, her predecessor and a defendant in the case, return the necessary files. Jackie Peppars, a member from Fresno homecare, told how she and other members were encouraged to stop their COPE contributions. Kevin Hall, her former union rep, gave her a list of members to contact from home. Ms. Peppars told the jury how "something did not feel right" so she stopped calling halfway thru. That's when she knew something was wrong.
The courtroom saw video footage of large audience meeting in Sacramento where the audience was mesmerized. This seemed painful for some in the room to watch. Perhaps it was a reminder of other "false leaders" who have led people down dangerous paths.
My name is Tyrone Dickens and I am a union healthcare worker.
I have worked as a homecare provider in San Francisco for almost six years. My work involves cleaning, cooking and caring for patients in their homes who cannot do these things for themselves. For some of my homecare consumers who don't have family any more, I am the only companion in their lives.
This week I have attended a civil lawsuit in which the officials of the union that currently represent me are suing the former leaders of my local union, leaders that I elected and that I still support. I know that may sound confusing, but I think I can explain it clearly so that you can understand.
Once again, Mr. Dan Siegel, counsel for the defendants, attempted to sidetrack the trial and go into areas that he had been previously told were not to go into. Talking about the trusteeship....BAD. Again Judge William Alsup quickly reigned him in and instructed the jury that what is not at hand were the merits of the trusteeship. "Even if the defendants were the angels and the plaintiffs were the devils...it does not matter because even angels cannot steal," the judge said, because the issue in front of the jury is whether the defendants stole union property and assets and sabotaged UHW while on its payroll.
Oriana Saportas, a UHW organizer, explained to the jury that just before trusteeship, workers at Santa Rosa Memorial who had been trying to organize were told about an "island option" as a choice in their bid to become a union hospital. The implication is that the "island option" was code for a new union. Oriana Saportas, an organizer on that campaign, told the jury of meetings that happened where this was brought up. The meeting was attended by defendant Glenn Goldstein. She went on to say how defendant Peter Tappeiner, to whom she reported, instructed her to back up membership and campaign files from the union's computer into an external drive. At some point he also instructed her to go to Kinko's and Xerox all the worker "contact sheets."
On the stand today were two shop stewards, Denny Henriques from Sutter Delta and Jenny Edney from Kaiser Vallejo. They both told how prior to trusteeship the former leaders, now defendants, instructed them "not to engage" any new union staff that may come into their facilities after the trusteeship. Prior to the trusteeship, they were given "decertification petitions" and told to gather signatures using membership lists provided for them by a defendant
"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).
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.
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.
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:
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...
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.
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.
