One hundred years ago today, the garment workers of New York were galvanized into action by the gruesome and unnecessary deaths of 146 workers, mostly immigrant women, at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory. Many of the workers burned to death because doors were locked, while scores of others died trying to escape by leaping from the 8th, 9th and 10th floors. After the funerals, tens of thousands of working New Yorkers marched, and workers demanded change and a voice in the workplace.
Today, workers in America, especially immigrant workers, find ourselves again in need of a voice. Unionization rates are 6.9% in the private sector; disparities in wealth are greater than at any time since 1928, and corporate America has consolidated its capital and its political power.
The American Dream of the mid-20th Century was built on good jobs - on union jobs. But here in the 21st Century, more and more working people are slipping into poverty. The working poor are everywhere we turn, and Latino workers make up 59% of the working poor in California. Nearly 50% of the foreclosures in California hit hard-working Latino familiesand more than 1 in 4 of the Latino children in California are living in poverty, most of them in working families.
News is suddenly moving so fast that it's becoming hard for me to keep up; that's why we're not finishing the story today that we just began Tuesday. You know, the one about Titan Cement suing two North Carolina residents who appear to be doing nothing more than speaking the truth.
Unfortunately, other important news has forced itself to the front of the line, and it's going to demand that we break schedule, whether we like it or not.
That's why today we're going to be talking about Wisconsin, and how workers there are fighting back against the State's Republican legislators and Governor, who seem to have gone out of their way this past three weeks to govern without the consent of the governed.
It's kind of chilly today in Wisconsin...but I can assure you, things are heating up fast-and it ain't because of spring.
In an ideal world, labor wouldn't have to spend their negotiations on the subject of givebacks of gains they have made in the past. But, this is far from an ideal world, and labor has been up against the wall to do just that. However, for far too long the Governor has declined to negotiate in good faith, instead unilaterally declaring furlough days and otherwise attacking state workers.
But, of course, there is that first way. You know, where labor and the administration work cooperatively towards a shared goal of a functioning state government. And while this isn't necessarily the vision of a functioning government that we would like to see, at least there was some cooperation:
The contract includes a one-day-a-month "personal leave program" that amounts to a 5% pay cut for the union's 95,000 members in the first year. It also lowers the pension levels for future employees and requires current workers to contribute an additional 3% toward their retirement.
Union workers would be exempt from furloughs or being paid minimum wage during any future budget impasses.
"This was a hard-fought negotiation but we proved that collective bargaining works," SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne Walker said in a prepared statement. "We reached an agreement that helps the state maintain services, during this unprecedented fiscal crisis, while providing stability for our members." (LA Times)
The deal lasts for three years, and will clear up one of the bigger remaining sticking points for the budget approval process.
Sometimes stories happen because of planning; other times serendipity intervenes, which is how we got to the conversation we'll be having today.
In an exchange of comments on the Blue Hampshire site, I proposed an idea that could be of real value to unions, workers...and surprisingly, employers.
If things worked out correctly, not only would lots of people feel a real desire to have unions represent them, but employers would potentially be coming to unions looking to forge relationships, and, just to make it better, this plan bypasses virtually all of the tools and techniques employers use to shut out union organizers.
Since I just thought this up myself, I'm really not sure exactly how practical the whole thing is, and the last part of the discussion today will be provided by you, as I ask you to sound off on whether this plan could work, and if so, how it could be made better.
It's a new week...so let's all put our heads together and rebuild the labor movement, shall we?
Barely one week after a federal jury unanimously found NUHW, Rosselli, Lewis, and the other defendants liable to UHW for over $1.5 million, following a two week trial that exposed their corruption and deceit, NUHW is dealt another devastating blow. By withdrawing from the NLRB election at St. Francis Hospital in Lynwood, California, NUHW only sped up by a few days what would have been the inevitable result - another win for workers represented by SEIU-UHW!
No matter how hard Rosselli's propaganda machine tries to hide it, each day that passes by reveals that NUHW is losing steam, and after 15 months of having gained NOTHING for even a single healthcare worker in California, these "union reformers'" sole achievement has been discrediting their short lived experiment and "leaving their honor behind."
The hardworking members at St. Francis have reclaimed their hospital and can now return to doing what they do best, taking care of the sick. We, your brothers and sisters in the Daughters of Charity network of hospitals, working in the other facilities congratulate you! We too look forward to reclaiming our facilities, returning to normal, and finally being liberated from the unnecessary distractions that have tried to hurt us this past year. See you at the same bargaining table in 2012!
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
I've just received word that US District Judge Claudia Wilken has issued a preliminary injunction against the IHSS (in-home support services) cuts that were supposed to go into effect on November 1.
The suit was brought by SEIU four disability rights groups, UDW and three SEIU locals in response to the summer budget cuts. The California Disability Community Action Network has more information about the lawsuit. More details coming.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken issued the preliminary injunction. In making the decision, she found that a written notice she stopped the state from sending out last week would have been constitutionally inadequate - too hard to understand, and giving too little time for appeals. She also found that the plaintiffs - advocates for disabled and elderly Californians, along with several labor unions - are likely to be able to prove at trial that the state was using inadequate standards to determine whose services would be cut. (CCT 10/19/09)
This in no way saves these cuts from going forward, it simply says that the methods that the state was going to use to make the cuts was all sorts of screwy. The "functional index" was going to be used to determine who gets what level of services, but many people would be cut off without really understanding what was happening. This is a vulnerable population, and to set them loose without a clear understanding of what is going on is even more unconscionable than the original cuts themselves.
Even before they are instituted, the IHSS cuts have been a debacle and are really proving to be a disaster. And, with that being the case, senior and disabled groups really had no choice but to sue, alleging that the cuts violate federal disability laws.
Alleging violations of federal disability rights laws, the organizations are challenging how California state welfare directors have decided to select who will be dropped from services because of state budget cuts. The groups are asking for a hearing before a judge as soon as next week to seek a preliminary injunction before the state starts mailing notices in mid-October to IHSS recipients informing them that they will be affected by cuts. (SacBee 10/01/09)
Of course, the IHSS cuts are really only one of very many cuts that are at once both tragic and possibly violating the letter and/or the spirit of federal requirements.
