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.
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 Lisa Tomasian and I'd like to tell you the story behind a letter I wrote to the trustees of SEIU-UHW.
Having worked at Kaiser Hospital as a Radiology Technologist as well as having served as an elected union shop steward for the past 18 years, I believe that workers' rights are human rights. I've come to believe that labor unions are the vehicle and voice for workers to advocate for social justice.
In my previous posts, United Healthcare Workers Holding our Ground and We are the Union. SEIU who are you? I shared my experience of the trusteeship SEIU International imposed on SEIU-UHW and the birth of our new union, NUHW. What I'd like to do today is share with you why this experience has been a defining moment for me and my sisters and brothers building NUHW...
In my years as an activist member with SEIU United Healthcare Workers - West I have been a part of many struggles for working people. But in the last months we have been in a different kind of fight. We have stood up to the arrogance of Andy Stern, Anna Burger and other SEIU International officers who, in an attempt to flex their muscles and stifle dissent, have chastened many rank-and-file members and our local, United Healthcare Workers - West with the threat of trusteeship. But I will say now, organized union members will never be intimidated by anyone, International Union officers included. We will stand up to anyone.
I saw this stifling of members' voices at the SEIU Convention in Puerto Rico from the moment we entered the convention center, when our delegation was harassed and followed. I saw this as the Convention voted to move me and other workers out of my union and into corrupt Local 6434, ignoring our right to decide where we belong. The hundreds in Puerto Rico voted to move us 65,000 from California. But we were not intimidated then.
UHW member Ella Raiford, protesting the Convention's vote to force members out of UHW.
In response, we came out in force. At our mass demonstration in Manhattan Beach, where we organized 6000 members to protest another sham hearing, I personally went up to Anna Burger and confronted her, telling her that we will not be swayed and demanded that Stern and Burger meet with our membership. We aren't furniture, we can't be moved around on their whims. We weren't surprised when she said no to a meeting. We stood strong in front of them, never scared.
My UHW brothers and sisters protesting the International's plans to divide us in July.
We continued on to Madison, Wisconsin, where a group of us were determined to meet with SEIU International. We continued in our demands for a meeting with Andy Stern, and to our surprise he agreed to meet us for a brief talk. But he said very little to us, claiming that he couldn't say anything without his lawyers. Instead of our elected officers working for us, Andy and Anna wanted the lawyers to do their job, so they could wash their hands when we pressed them with questions. When faced with dozens of informed, angry union members, maybe our International union officers were intimidated by us!
We confronted Andy Stern; me right after our meeting with him.
And most recently, I and fifty other UHW members occupied the SEIU International office in Alameda to demand answers from out-of-touch union officials who support taking away our voice. We shouldn't be afraid to confront them -- they work for us!
Us confronting International officials at the SEIU Office in Oakland.
This is a movement of union members who have one goal: to keep our democratically run union, UHW, where we make decisions. I and others in our union have confronted our bosses and won, through the power of organized union members. We are not afraid to take on any fight, even against SEIU International officials.
JuanAntonio Molina
Proud UHW Member
In-Home Healthcare Provider
San Francisco, CA
Back in April, I wrote about a lawsuit SEIU was filing against SEIU-UHW. Today, that suit was dismissed by the federal district court judge (PDF Order here).
In legal parlance, SEIU failed to state a claim under federal rule of civil procedure 12b6. The rule is basically a frivolous lawsuit screening tool, and not a very high standard to get past this rule. However, SEIU went for something of a legal reach against their rebellious local, and were slapped down.
Ignoring what I felt personally about this case, I never really saw much in terms of a legal claim. I guess sometimes my legal intuition is right. UHW will be able to receive legal fees arising from the litigation.
Dave Johnson sent over this really pretty amazing article in the Catholic News Agency after seeing my post on SEIU-UHW's battle to unionize workers in the St. Joseph Health Care System. Sure it is a few months old, but it is too good not to blog. The article is titled innocently enough "Catholic health workers' effort to unionize could crowd out Catholics". Crowd out Catholics they say? How?
Well...it is all about the homos you see, as the lead tells us.
A complex labor dispute between a Californian Catholic healthcare company and its employees could end in an agreement with a union that promotes homosexual rights, the California Catholic Daily reports.
And what do they use to base this claim?
Well, they go right after Sal Roselli, the leader of SEIU-UHW. No, not like SEIU International has gone after Sal, but because, gasp, he is gay! Going way back to 1984. Oh my goodness.
In 1984-85, Roselli was president of a Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club. A grand marshal for the 2006 San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade, Roselli has introduced domestic partner compensation into the UHW member benefits.
This bit is my favorite. They use an anonymous source to attack Sal and SEIU-UHW.
A political activist in Sacramento, who requested anonymity, told the California Catholic Daily that Roselli's union is trying to become the exclusive bargaining agent for some St. Joseph employees.
"This is a very contentious union, and if they get what they want, there will be a full homosexualization of everything. Domestic partner benefits and the like will come from worker dues, and the full muscle of the union will be put behind the homosexual agenda," the activist said.
Yes, that is exactly what SEIU-UHW does. They are all about advancing the homosexual agenda and homosexualizing EVERYTHING.
It is a dirty little secret, but often times the more virulently anti-union employers are religious orders that run health systems. Such is the situation with the Sisters of St. Joseph who run the St. Joseph Health System. They have been resisting the efforts of their service employees to join SEIU-UHW for the past three years.
SEIU-UHW is organizing a series of events this week in support of their organizing efforts. Today Delores Huerta of the United Farm Workers wrote a HuffPost piece on the struggle.
This week I'm joining St. Joseph Health System workers, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Father Eugene Boyle, actor Ed Begley Jr, and community and religious leaders to call upon the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange to make peace with their workers.
For decades, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange have fought for justice for California's workers. In the summer of 1973, they marched in solidarity with Cesar Chavez and farm workers during the brutal Grape Strike. I witnessed the Sisters putting their personal safety at risk. They walked picket lines and even went to jail with more than 3500 striking farm workers. I was inspired by the Sisters' commitment to stand with the farm workers, even in the face of violent provocation.
But now, these same sisters are refusing to show their own workers the same justice they once fought for.
"The lawsuit and the PR circus around it are a hoax perpetrated on you, the press, and our members in order to smear us and shut down the Stern team's political opposition," Rosselli said in an interview Tuesday.
He said the suit is part of a pattern of "constant threat and retaliation" from Stern for UHW-West seeking changes to how SEIU national operates to become - in Rosselli's terms - "more democratic."
***
"UHW-W has scrambled at the last minute to do damage control," said SEIU spokesman Andrew McDonald. "While it is good that UHW-W now understands the serious problems with their actions, it is very troubling they were willing to perpetuate unlawful actions until those actions were exposed."
Rosselli called the suit "frivolous." "The remedy they are seeking from the lawsuit was decided last week," he said.
I'm guessing right now that the amount of money spent on this lawsuit and the accompanying hubbub approach the amount of money involved in the lawsuit. I'm hoping that money starts going back to where it's needed like paying for this ad that's running in Ohio against John McCain rather than into legal costs.
My name is Barbara Lewis and I’m VP in the SEIU-UHW (United Healthcare Workers – West) Hospital Division. We’re glad to continue this discussion about the direction of SEIU and defending the voice of the membership.
SEIU has made outrageous allegations here and elsewhere that my local union, SEIU-UHW had a hand in the California Nurses Association (CNA) raid against SEIU’s Ohio CHP (Catholic Healthcare Partners) campaign -- a raid that resulted in SEIU pulling the campaign and 9000 workers being denied the right to form a union.
Andy Stern, Mary Kay Henry and Dave Regan’s effort to shift the blame onto UHW for the Ohio tragedy is simply an attempt to cover up their own responsibility in this.
(This has been an interesting discussion (when people are not flaming each other), so let's keep it civil. - promoted by Julia Rosen)
Thanks to Brian for his post on the blogger discussion with SEIU's Andy Stern and for opening this discussion. I'm new to the Calitics community and the new UHW Online Communications Specialist.
As a first contribution to this discussion, I thought it would be helpful to share the broad background of our dispute with SEIU, and the outlines of a few of the lessons we've learned in the course of many campaigns to build our union. Through focused efforts to improve the lives of healthcare workers and the people we serve, UHW has developed a model of growth through strength that at the same time achieves the goal of growth for strength.
For the first two terms of Andy Stern's presidency, from 1996 to 2004 and beyond through the initial days of Change to Win, UHW and SEIU shared vision of increasing union membership and improving workers' lives based on building the capacity of strong local unions, maximizing member partcipation in organizing and politics, coordinating our strength across entire industries through democratic structures of accountability to rank and file union members.
However, in recent years, SEIU's priority of growth has lost its qualitative dimension. It is now an act of blasphemy to question what kind of growth makes sense or what purpose growth should serve or what role the informed consent and active participation of workers should have in growth. It is expected that local leaders accept the gospel of growth for growth's sake and accept the quickest short cuts possible to achieve it, even when that means putting employers agendas ahead of workers' aspirations, taking decisions out of workers' hands, and limiting workers' rights to advocate for themselves and for the public interest, both now and in the future.
Update: So there's another story about this in Harper's Blog:
Yet Stern is currently presiding over what some within the union describe as a power grab, and one that could squelch opposition to some controversial deals he and his allies have supported (like a provision, ultimately shot down by internal opposition, that would have imposed a seven-year ban on strikes by Tenet Healthcare union employees). On Friday morning Stern is seeking to push through a deal that would severely weaken his chief critic inside the SEIU, in the name of “restructuring.”
“Stern is essentially seeking to take a public entity private,” one person familiar with the situation told me.
The chief battleground is California, where SEIU has around 650,000 members, 40 percent of its total membership. Back in 2004 there were 38 SEIU locals in California but that number was subsequently reduced to 20. This has occurred because in 2006 Stern and his allies pushed through a statewide reorganization that merged numerous locals into bigger entities, whose membership, critics say, was gerrymandered. Stern then handpicked the leaders at the newly formed unions, installing close allies as officers.
I guess to some extent, I was sucked into the frame of the LA Times story, that this was some profound change in SEIU's health care policy. And while there might be some long term impact on health policy here, I think it might require a keener eye than my own to see really what this is all about. This could be about something more basic about what organized labor is, what their goals are, how to build a strong union. There's most assuredly some personality and ego issues involved, but the timing of this potential putsch seems a bit sketchy.
Updated: I should also link to this SF Weekly article about some of the differences between the two leaders here, just as background if you care to learn more. Ok, back to your regularly scheduled update.
This has been a crazy "YEAR OF HEALTHCARE REFORM," hasn't it? The Governor's Plan doesn't even get a hearing until the special session. The best solution, SB 840, Sen. Kuehl's single payer bill, doesn't get very far because everybody's aware of the veto that would rain down upon it like a South Pacific typhoon. The Assembly Dems and the Senate Dems eventually formed a comprimise plan at the end of the session only to see it get vetoed by the Governor. And now, while the Governor has moved on some important issues, like the lottery as a funding source, and changing his employer fee from 4% to 6%, an actual deal could yet elude us.
And even when (and if) we actually get a deal, because of the funding provisions, we still have to go to the ballot. And now, there's issues in labor. Exciting, huh?
Perhaps this post would be better for Labor Day than Columbus Day, but either way it's something that I think is important. Labor unions often get painted with broad strokes as relics and dinosaurs just waiting for mammals to take over the world. Heck, I have some very progressive friends who have voiced that opinion. But that doesn't make it right, or even defensible.
Last week I attended the SEIU-UHW Leadership Conference, and talked to a few people there about why unions, in general, and their union, in specific are important. I thought the responses were interesting in a number of ways. But I'll frame this post using the words of Jorge Rodriguez, the executive vice president of SEIU-UHW, and the former president of SEIU Local 399, the LA area SEIU health union that merged to form UHW. I'll just paraphrase those words: "The status of labor is directly correlated to the status of the middle class."
That might seem to be something of a truism, but look back, and you'll see it's true. In countries where labor is strong, the middle class is strong. We can pour through the history books, union membership data and economic data to show that this is true. Growth of union membership is uniquely tied to growth of the middle class. When labor was at its height of membership (%-wise) during the middle of the 20th century, the middle class boomed and flourished. People were stable and confident in their futures within their workplace, and productivity reflected that worker content.
In the days immediately following the great Merv Griffin's death, I bring to you a Quick Jeopardy-style "answer." Nursing homes, hospitals and other healthcare facilities.
The "Question"? What are places that I would be a lot more comfortable if they were unionized. You know, I'm not all that into my healthcare facilities trolling for the worker who will work for 25 cents less than the next guy. But that's what your typical healthcare facility will do, because, profit is king, right? And so, that is what brought me to the SEIU-UHW 2008-2010 Bargaining Convention in Oakland on Saturday.
The convention was a learning experience for me, but let's get to that over the flip.
