22 Sep

SEIU Attack Black Tea Party Patriot & Tampa Town DNC Slaps Man

Now Obama is sending the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to beat up Tea Party People. So last night in St Louis they beat up a black man who was handing out buttons and flags as a protest against the runaway out of control federal government.

President Obama has said that the “tea party patriots” who have questioned his plan for the takeover of health care by the government are using “mob tactics.” Here is a quick video of Moveon.org, SEIU, and DNC using “mob tactics.” We are just a group of grassroots activists that want our elected representatives to have full and open debate on health care reform. In this video patriots our verbally and physically attacked by DNC mob members. At the Tampa Town Hall, a guy was “slapped” by a local Democrat treasurer. Other people were pushed out of the room, just for questioning the health care bill.

22 Aug

97% of Bus Drivers Say Remove Union, SEIU’s Bad Druggist Policy

Hello, and welcome to this week’s Right to Work news update.

In Monroeville, Pennsylvania, Gateway School District’s bus drivers have won the right to a secret-ballot vote to determine whether if they want to remove the Amalgamated Transit Union from their workplace.

The bus drivers will finally have a chance to vote on June 27, after 102 of the roughly 105 bus drivers signed the fourth petition they filed with the National Labor Relations Board asking for the secret-ballot election four times.

ATU Local 1729 officials moved to block the workers’ petitions, but late last week, the NLRB Regional Director ruled in favor of the workers’ latest request for an election.

In other news, a Santa Clara Valley Medical Center pharmacist has filed a state charge against a local union for illegally refusing to honor her right to refrain from full dues-paying union membership.

Han Kwan Wong filed the charge with the California Public Employment Relations Board against Service Employees International Union Local 521 for illegally forcing her into full union dues payments against her will.

In December 2013, Wong attempted to hand deliver a letter to SEIU Local 521 notifying the union hierarchy that she was exercising her right to refrain from formal union membership. Wong then sent a certified letter to the union hierarchy. SEIU Local 521 union officials responded by acknowledging Wong’s resignation letter but still continue to extract full union dues from her paychecks — claiming the union membership resignation did not meet the union’s criteria.

Wong’s charge seeks an acknowledgment from the union that she is no longer a union member, an independently-audited breakdown of union expenditures, a refund of illegally-seized forced union dues from her paychecks dating back to December, and the posting of notices in the workplace informing workers of their right to refrain from union membership.

Thank you for watching today’s Right to Work news update. See you next week.

22 Jul

Labor Union Responses to Workplace Violence 1998 SEIU

Labor unions use a variety of strategies to reduce workplace violence, including forming joint labor/management programs, filing complaints with enforcement agencies, negotiating contract language, and working for passage of state and federal legislation. Cooperative programs in which management voluntarily “does the right thing” are usually the most effective. These programs are positive and usually experience less management resistance than actions imposed on management as the result of a grievance or citation from an outside agency.

However, cooperative programs require strong management commitment, good labor relations, meaningful worker participation, and healthy organizational culture. These positive factors are rare in today’s workplaces. When unions cannot gain cooperation from management in dealing with workplace violence, traditional adversarial tactics may be employed, including filing grievances, OSHA complaints, mass petitions, press actions, and working for new legislation. For more, read Jonathon’s Rosen’s article, A labor perspective of workplace violence prevention, at http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S07… .

Workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors. Homicide is currently a leading cause of fatal occupational injuries in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 4,547 fatal workplace injuries that occurred in the United States in 2010, 506 were workplace homicides. Homicide is the leading cause of death for women in the workplace. Nearly 2 million American workers report having been victims of workplace violence each year. Unfortunately, many more cases go unreported.

Factors that may increase the risk of violence include exchanging money with the public and working with volatile, unstable people. Working alone or in isolated areas may also contribute to the potential for violence. Providing services and care, and working where alcohol is served may also impact the likelihood of violence. Additionally, time of day and location of work, such as working late at night or in areas with high crime rates, are also risk factors that should be considered when addressing issues of workplace violence. Among those with higher risk are workers who exchange money with the public, delivery drivers, healthcare professionals, public service workers, customer service agents, law enforcement personnel, and those who work alone or in small groups. In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions. By assessing their worksites, employers can identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring.

A well written and implemented Workplace Violence Prevention Program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence. For much more on workplace violence, go to the OSHA webpage athttp://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplacevio…, the NIOSH webpage at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/viole… . This 1998 video, PRIVATE HORROR/PUBLIC ISSUE: ON THE JOB ASSAULT (17 min), was created by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). This video provides a graphic depiction of the problem of workplace violence, especially for those who work in healthcare, offices, or other so-called safe environments. Using several case histories, including interviews with victims of workplace violence, emphasis is placed on workers’ rights and union efforts to prevent violence on the job.

22 Jun

SEIU Exposed: SEIU Assaulted Workers During Corporate Campaign

Rather than allow workers a private ballot, SEIU engaged in a corporate campaign in an effort to coerce workers into their union.

True Card Check Story of SEIU and U.S. Labor Coordinated Abuse

This is an important story in these times of the Big Labor takeover of the Federal government. This documented true story that contains Card Check abuse, SEIU physical violence against workers, SEIU abuse of the NLRB system, orchestrated false allegations, and a corrupt Clinton appointee; and you can see and hear about what happens when Big Labor Bosses control a presidents administration like they do today.

Mr. Randy Schabers story begins with the discovery of an ongoing SEIU card check forced unionism scheme that included harassing employees at their homes. Mr. Schaber offered to hold an NLRB sanctioned secret ballot election.

The SEIU organizers replied, We will never let your employees have a secret ballot election. Then, Mr. Schaber began to feel the pain that SEIUs corporate campaign is designed to inflict.

To hear Mr. Schaber tell the story in his own words, we recommend that you listen and watch his full interview (links to parts 1, 2, and 3) or for a brief description view his shortened interview. You will be amazed at the abuse of federal power coordinated by SEIU in the 1990s when they had less control of the White House than they do today.

For more information, you can download the edited version of the U.S. House of Representatives Report that discusses SEIUs corporate campaign and the U.S. Department of Labors abuses that Mr. Schaber suffered and eventually resulted in the dismissal of a Clinton appointee.

The following are quotes from that U.S. House of Representatives report:

Corporate campaigns

John Sweeney, President of the AFLCIO, declared a new direction for the international labor unions that the Federation represents. Mr. Sweeney declared that labor would become far more militant in the pursuit of organizing and collective bargaining objectives. The term used to organize formally non-union corporations became known as corporate campaigns.

A corporate campaign has several distinct elements. Two of the most prominent elements are: having the target company perceived negatively by the companys investors, customers, employees and the public, and initiating enforcement and oversight actions by federal, State, and local governmental agencies. In other words, organized labor in a corporate campaign does not necessarily target the employees of the corporation as it had done historically, but rather focuses on corporate management.

Perhaps Stephen Lerner, Organizing Director of the Service Employees International Union said it best—

Instead of asking, How do we win a majority of (employee) votes?, we should be asking, How do we develop power to force employers to recognize the union and sign a contract.


22 May

Illinois Governor Battles Government Union Dons

201503nl05Last summer, thanks to the persistence and clear thinking of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys and eight Illinois home care providers whom they represented free of charge, the U.S. Supreme Court seriously undermined a precedent that had bolstered monopolistic unionism for 37 years.

In 1977’s Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Justice Potter Stewart, joined by five of his colleagues, had invoked a strained and constricted reading of the First Amendment in order to uphold the imposition on union nonmembers of compulsory financial support for government unions’ bargaining activities.

But in June 2014, Justice Sam Alito’s 5-4 majority opinion in Harris v. Quinn marked a clear break from the pro-forced unionism-in-government stance the High Court had taken in Abood.

At a minimum, Mr. Alito’s opinion made it plain that putative “labor peace” is not an all-purpose excuse for sanctioning the extraction of forced dues and fees from Americans for government union-boss representation they don’t want, and never asked for.

Current Supreme Court Majority Doubts That Forced Dues Are Constitutional

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee as well as the Foundation (the Committee’s sister organization), explained the significance of the Harris decision:

“Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas agreed that the state of Illinois was not the home care providers’ common-law employer or their sole employer and so concluded that the Abood excuse for compelling employee financial support for unions did not apply to them.

“Since the plaintiffs were not employed in any government workplace, their exercise of their right not to bankroll an unwanted union could not even theoretically pose a threat to ‘labor peace’ in the workplace, as the Abood opinion had envisioned.

“Because it was found not to be an applicable precedent, Abood was neither upheld nor overturned.

“However, even as it left Abood standing, the Harris opinion concurred with the plaintiff’s counsel of record, William Messenger, and other Right to Work attorneys that there are profound flaws in this precedent’s reasoning.

“For example, Justice Stewart’s opinion supposed it would be relatively easy to distinguish government union bosses’ political activities, which nonmembers could not be constitutionally forced to bankroll, from their bargaining activities, for which forced nonmember fees could be exacted.

“But unlike in the private sector, Mr. Alito noted, where bargaining is directed at the employer and political advocacy is directed at the government, ‘in the public sector, both collective-bargaining and political advocacy and lobbying are directed at the government.’

“The Harris majority concluded that Abood is a ‘questionable’ precedent. Of course, that means that the constitutionality of public-sector forced union dues is also ‘questionable.’”

Last summer, this Newsletter reported that the Harris decision had “cast into grave doubt whether state laws and other policies authorizing the forced extraction of union dues from public servants are permissible under the First Amendment.”

Bruce Rauner Wields His Executive Power to Protect State Employees

However, the August 2014 cover story added, “at least for the near future, the task of actually eliminating these constitutionally dubious statutes and policies has been left to state legislative and executive officials.”

One state elected official who has made it clear to his constituents and concerned citizens across the country that he understands it is his responsibility to defend the Constitution is Illinois GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner, a former businessman who took office just a couple of months ago.

As the chief executive of a state in which Big Labor has a lock grip on both chambers of the Legislature, Mr. Rauner is very unlikely in the foreseeable future to get a chance to sign any statute revoking government union bosses’ forced-dues privileges.

That is not to say his hands are tied.

On February 9, in one of his first major actions as governor, Mr. Rauner exercised his executive power to stop state government union kingpins from raking in forced “agency” fees from thousands of civil servants who have chosen not to join the union that wields monopoly-bargaining power in their workplace.

The governor simultaneously announced that his administration would file a federal lawsuit asking for a determination as to whether public-sector forced union dues and fees are, as he believes, “unconstitutional.”

Until this case is resolved, the executive order provides that forced fees will continue to be deducted from the paychecks of state government employees, but the confiscated money will be put into an escrow account, rather than funneled into union coffers.

If and when the federal judiciary follows the logic of the Harris opinion and finds that government-sector forced union fees violate the First Amendment, the escrow money will be returned to the compulsory fee-payers.

‘That Is a Clear Violation Of [Public Servants’] First Amendment Rights’

Mr. Rauner forthrightly justified his bold action in a press release:

Employees who are “forced to pay unfair share dues” are “being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree. This is a clear violation of First Amendment rights — and something that, as governor, I am duty-bound to correct.

“ . . . Forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers. Government union bargaining and government union political activity are inexorably linked.”

Almost immediately after Mr. Rauner announced that the state of Illinois would cease turning over forced employee fees to Big Labor until their constitutionality was resolved, government union bosses began venting their rage.

Roberta Lynch, director of Springfield-based Local 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, decried the executive order as a “scheme” and as an “abuse of power.”

Catherine Boardman, president of Gary, Ind.-based Local 73 of the Service Employees International Union, accused the governor of trying to “ruin the lives of working families in Illinois.”

Meanwhile, the Prairie State’s GOP establishment politicians were remarkably reluctant to defend their fellow Republican’s effort to defend civil servants’ constitutional rights to the best of his ability.

In fact, a few days after the executive order was issued, state Comptroller Leslie Munger, an unsuccessful 2014 GOP state House candidate whom Mr. Rauner himself had appointed after the elected comptroller died before taking office, announced she would not enforce it.

Ms. Munger claimed she had no choice but to defer to union-label state Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s (D) ill-supported opinion that, despite the clearly expressed doubts of the Supreme Court inHarris, public-sector forced union fees are constitutional.

‘I Will Support the Constitution of the United States’

Mark Mix commended Mr. Rauner for his executive order, and for going to federal court in an effort to ensure that, despite the opposition of his own appointed comptroller, deductions of forced agency fees from state employees cease and the confiscated money is ultimately returned to the employees.

“In Illinois,” Mr. Mix noted, “the governor, legislators, and other public officials solemnly swear or affirm as they are installed: ‘I will support the Constitution of the United States . . . .’

“Our Founding Fathers never envisioned that the judiciary alone would be able to ward off threats to Americans’ constitutional liberties. It’s long past time for elected officials to confront the danger to the First Amendment posed by forced unionism.”

Mr. Mix vowed that Committee strategists as well as Foundation attorneys would do everything possible to help Mr. Rauner accomplish his stated objective of ending compulsory unionism in public employment.

Source: https://nrtwc.org/illinois-governor-battles-government-union-dons/

22 Apr

SEIU and other unions facing crisis as disputes between and within unions escalate

The following is a lengthy discussion of the current developing situation within the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). While discussions of other unions may seem obscure, in fact the Service Employees Union’s (SEIU) current direction actually impacts millions of us outside their organization. A number of documents related to this analysis have been removed from this article for reasons of space here in Substance and are available on line and from Substance. Contact: Csubstance@aol.com or the author at red1pearl@aol.com.

For example, the SEIU leadership recently ordered all local affiliates to withhold their dues from central labor bodies which share information, develop local solidarity, and wage campaigns such as strike support, living wage and establish common political agendas. The reason? To stop all such union groups from having any relations with the California Nurses or their National Nurses Organizing Committee. Their crime? To organize and push publicly for single-payer universal health insurance, for good nurse: patio staffing rations, and to criticize and compete with SEIU. Among teachers, SEIU’s impact is being felt in larger and larger ways. In addition to this California blackmail, SEIU is currently trying to replace the existing teachers’ union in Puerto Rico who were forced to strike this past winter. In fact, the SEIU offered to break the strike with scabs. Teachers from that union are picketing SEIU’s quadrennial convention being held in Puerto Rico right now, the first week of June.

In Chicago’s public schools, SEIU (Local 73) is the second largest union representing CPS workers (with approximately 5,000 members in CPS), after the Chicago Teachers Union. The following article traces the current internal divisions and issues at stake for working people over the undemocratic, corporate-style, grow-at-any-price unionism pursued under SEIU President Andy Stern and shared to some extent by his opponents. The challenge for us all is to understand these developments and how things got this way and create organizations for a fighting alternative. Andy Stern has led the SEIU to double its size, now 1.9 million members, since he was appointed organizing director back in 1985. Much of this growth has come from deals with employers that win some gains while locking new workers into huge organizations where they have little say-so. As attached documents here show, Stern’s grow-the-union deals in northern Calif. have meant freezing workers out of contract negotiations, blocking their right to go public about health and safety issues, and locking them into no-strike contracts under pre-set ‘template’ agreements.

At the same time, Stern has called international union conferences that generated pressure on global employers. He has sponsored creative coalitions to support organizing drives here in the U.S. A mixed bag.

Sal Rosselli is the president of United Healthcare Workers – West (UHW) now with over 140,000 members. As such, he signed off on and enforced those very same agreements with nursing home operators in northern California that he now denounces Stern for. Rosselli casts this fight as one between ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ union models, but all that glitters is not gold . At the same time, he has generated more rank-and-file pressure on operators than other Calif SEIU locals, something not appreciated either by the operators or, apparently, by Stern. Again, a mixed bag. This is not a simple conflict between good and evil. Even as Rosselli now challenges Stern’s one man rule and favors membership election, he

The fight is heating up in the country’s largest union, SEIU, the Service Employees. It concerns insider in-fighting, yes, but expresses widespread worker disaffection with top-down, corporate-partner unionism. Millions of working people are fed up with frozen pay, disappeared benefits, and growing insecurity. All driven by Corporate America’s insatiable drive for higher profits and abetted by ineffective unions. SEIU workers are coming forward to make the union serve their needs. You can visit them at _www.seiu reform.org_ (http://www. Seiu reform.org) .

The challenge is “Can the SEIU activists create an alternative to the union-corporate partnership they confront?”

This conflict is personified in now-open conflict between United Healthcare West’s president, Sal Rosselli and SEIU’s national president, Andy Stern. offers no challenge to the fundamental direction of union partnership with corporate management to ‘add value’ to their bottom line. Instead, he favors more pressure but towards the same accommodation and using the union to help employers As I hope to show here, this partnership strategy has meant and must mean undermining workers’ strength, creating divisions, and even attacking workers who resist corporate-imposed conditions. It is complicated and needs our critical investigation if we’re to move towards an alternative outlook and leadership. This clearly is an opportunity to build an alternative to this union-management cooperation path both Stern and Rosselli share — along with most U.S. union leadership and many conservative members. This internal conflict is as old as capitalism itself — some workers and leaders choosing the conservative, ‘go-along-to-get along’ tack while others take up the militant, class – solidarity approach.

Internally, Stern models the SEIU on corporate forms, such as “Local” unions of 100- 150,000 members with power concentrated in a few hands that he controls. This model of ‘efficiency’ just happens to coincide with the widespread practice of breaking up smaller, local unions when militant, democratic leadership wins elected leadership. Faced with this, top leaders in many unions often take over such locals, called receivership. In fact, that’s exactly what the SEIU did when the famous Justice for Janitors rank-and-file organizers won all the seats they contested in their local’s elections after organizing and leading successful mass actions in L.A. back in 1991. SEIU’s leaders, John Sweeney and his VP, Andy Stern, put them in receivership and diluted their influence by merging it into a huge, statewide ‘local’. The union-liberal publicity machine was big on the janitors’ marches, but said little about this undemocratic takeover.

Stern’s combination of controlled activism and partnering with Corporate America has paid off; the SEIU is the fastest growing major union in the country at a time of steady decline in union membership. However, bigger isn’t always better. When such growth reduces workers’ actual power in the workplace and makes us dependent on the union’s political machine, we’re reduced to being bargaining chips. Passivity is not strength. Just look at what the insurance companies did when the hurricanes hit New Orleans — no pay off when the chips are down. Activism brings some results, not insurance policies.

“Union-corporate partnership: a wet blanket ”

In my experience, the union-corporate “partnership” Stern embodies and that Rosselli continues to champion is little more than a wet blanket. It makes union leaders into firemen who dampen or put out our resistance to corporate-imposed conditions. Such union corporate jr. partners don’t’ just sit back; to protect the sr. partner — corporate profits and power. Experience shows that they actively undermine workers in the fight for solidarity and power to stand up for our needs. Any resistance to corporate attacks and for a workers’ agenda must start from this reality: we have to fight on two fronts, not just one. Below are examples from PATCO, the UAW and AFSCME:

PATCO- it didn’t have to be a defeat In the critical 1981 PATCO strike, President Reagan fired 11,000 overstressed air traffic controllers and brought in scabs. Unions from across the country passed resolutions calling on the AFL-CIO to call a general strike to defeat this union busting. Instead, that leadership refused, holding fast to their union-corporate junior partnership, upholding the corporate ‘order’ over workers’ struggle.

Locally, here in Chicago, the president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Robert Healey, threatened to cut off all union aid to the PATCO strikers if they dared hold a labor rally downtown and lead a motorcade to O’Hare International Airport to spark an airport shut down. The proposal and local contacts for the action came from a local group of radical worker – activists, something corporate partners like Healey feared like brain cancer. Such a powerful action might have turned the tide, shown the way forward around the inaction of the AFL leadership and most union bodies. Shutting down the country’s largest airport might have rallied and inspired wider sections of workers to effective action. It also would have shown workers that class struggle ideas can be useful. Healey spiked all this; the PATCO leaders caved under his threat. Healey was rewarded for his many years of such dependable service to Corporate America with an appointment to the Chicago branch of the Federal Reserve Board. The rest of us were treated to an onslaught against the working class that hasn’t stopped since.

“UAW firemen and the fallout”

Take the United Auto Workers’ political machine in Solidarity House. Once the giant of American labor, they’ve taken the big fall. Over the years, they’ve agreed to hundreds of thousands of job cuts .The rationale? To protect company profitability. Results? This past year, they agreed to 50 percent wage cuts for tens of thousands and accepted a deal where all retirees’ health benefits are underfunded by $14 Billion. Those working are screwed; those who made it to retirement face greater insecurity. This collapse opens the door for many more employers to cut wages and benefits. After all, if the once-mighty UAW stands for this, what’s to stop others?

Faced with the market competition inherent in capitalism, this dedication to the corporate bottom line means us going down with their ship. Anyone fighting to renew our unions must start with this reality if we’re to create an alternative. Otherwise, we’ve got no answer to the race to the bottom already under way.

“How did things get so bad in the UAW?” conditions and disrespectful treatment.

This already-radicalized layer of factory workers fought the conditions they faced in auto, steel and other industries. Fighting management, they ran into the a hidden reef— UAW political machine.

To fight speedup, these young workers sent a delegation to Japan to set common production speed standards directly with Japanese auto workers and their unions. They also sent out teams to various U.S. plants to make a common stand. To counter this, the UAW leadership machine attacked them and stirred up nationalist (“Buy American!”) and racist (“ It’s the Japs!”) sentiment. It got so bad that UAW officials and some auto workers smashed some auto workers’ Japanese-made cars in parking lots and several thugs actually murdered a Chinese man in Detroit under the impression he was Japanese. Domestically, the UAW machine pushed the company line of competition between domestic plants for work, called whipsawing — where each plant competes against others for work, all under the same UAW collaboration. It was competition vs. solidarity. The radical workers lost, a loss we all feel today. Lessons must be taken if we’re not to repeat that loss and that opportunity.

When these auto workers organized wildcat strikes against unsafe work and racist job practices, the same UAW machine brought out hundreds of supporters to attack their pickets with iron bars. When these workers ran slates for local office, the same machine stole elections and used openly racist and red-baiting tactics against the often Black-led upsurge. (Some history: Starting around the late 1960s, mostly young auto workers began to resist speedup and unsafe conditions. Many younger workers came to auto plants as combat vets from Vietnam or veterans of struggles here against racist conditions in the late ’60s and early ’70s. Both black and white, they were not prepared to quietly accept the dangerous this is visible in the movie “ Finally Got the News!” about the Detroit-based League of Revolutionary Black Workers.).

To fight back, auto workers ran into the partnership machine. The pro-civil rights, ‘progressive’ UAW leadership machine typified the ‘jr. partnership’ approach that Stern and Rosselli both share, There will be no advance for us if we don’t face and learn to grow under this reality.

“The AFSCME story, our experience”

In our union, AFSCME, my fellow-teachers and I got a similar education. When our local introduced a motion at our state convention calling for our state union, Council 31, to actively campaign for single-payer health coverage, the state leadership opposed the resolution even as they supported one that called for no action. Then, when we apparently won the vote, the Executive Director ruled against us and moved the agenda before we

could appeal.

In February 2003, our Local (3506) was five days from shutting down the City Colleges’ largest program with 60,000 GED and ESL students in a legally-sanctioned strike after three years of preparations. In the last day of scheduled negotiations, AFSCME’s state leadership told us that they’d label us a wildcat and sit back when management fired anyone they chose. You could feel the air pumped out of our lungs. When push came to shove, you could see which side they too were on.. “Class solidarity vs. class collaboration”

Hopefully, these examples and everyday life shows that union-corporate ‘cooperation’ really means isolating us as workers, playing divide-and-rule that protects corporate domination and union insiders’ perks. Of course, there were, are, and will be workers who have no taste for any challenges and who support this collaboration. Such divisions between conservative and militants are natural; there is no pure group just waiting for someone to call “Charge!” on their trumpets! All efforts to challenge the current path require open discussion and decisions by those committed to resistance and a real alternative. This is a profoundly political process. Clarity is critical. Ideas influence actions, so we must be able to investigate them and their usefulness for us — from Andy Stern’s to Karl Marx’s.

Since we are all connected by the global economic system, a genuine fight for an alternative path in SEIU would offer hope for us all. And especially now, as North America sinks further into economic turmoil, with bailouts for the mendacious corporate thieves and growing hardship for huge numbers of ‘ordinary’, i.e. working class, people. Right now, hunger gnaws at more bellies, here and globally. Food pantries here go empty while food riots

grow across the world. Now, more than ever, we must have vision, organization, and leadership that connects us as a class, local to global. This alone can brings our strengths together like tendons connect bone and muscles in our body.

How can we defend better union pay when most people around us are going down? Our reform groups must connect with the millions outside our unions or risk being isolated and defeated as ‘greedy unions who only look out for themselves’. Unions can take up this challenge and opportunity. Concretely, the SEIU activists can lead a fight for worker-patient conditions. They can unite with millions if they campaign for publicly – funded health care, against subsidies for the profiteers. They can seek allies and build bridges of solidarity in action for things most people need and support. This kind of strategy gives us ways to connect our common interests, concretely.

History gives us positive examples to learn from, for example, the Trade Union Educational League (TUEL) of the 1920s-30s,, led by the Communist Party and organized around the strategy of industrial unions vs. the conservative, narrow-interest AFL trade unions. This group was national, organized around an alternative path. Many of its members went on to help organize the breakaway Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1930s.

Right now, rail workers from many trade unions are forming a new, national organization called Rail Workers United. (www.railraod workers united. org_(http://www.railraodworkers united.org) ). It’s goal is to unite rail workers, beyond the narrow limits of each trade. While we lack any viable national left organization, we do have people coming forward, building towards broader solidarity unionism.

All that glitters is not gold

Such reform fights are not new; but how many have led to disappointment and greater hopelessness among workers? As everyone knows, ‘talking the talk’ isn’t ‘walking the walk’. We owe it to ourselves and so many others to take a careful look, to investigate some of the contradictory experience here and draw useful lessons. Creating an alternative to today’s corporate union partnership is a hard job. Part of that job means untangling workers’ interests from specific leaders who often use language of

democracy and workers’ power to cover their own aspirations and loyalty to corporate collaboration.

We see this today (April, 2008) with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama using populist language of ‘the people vs. special interests’ to cover their own loyalty to Corporate America and its domination.. At the same time, many ‘union reformers’ have used similar appeals to gather discontent and lead it into the same dead end, only with news faces and under new banners. We saw this with John Sweeney and the New Voices winning AFL-CIO leadership in 1995. No fight. More sellouts. Some change.

Sal Rosselli’s challenge to some of Stern’s methods will come to a head at SEIU’s May 2008 convention. He’s proposed one-member, one-vote elections of national officers, not convention delegate elections. His proposals, while apparently democratic, do not in any way challenge SEIU’s current union-corporate partnership. Still, as Rosselli said in a recent interview , “The convention will not be the end” of this conflict. Rosselli has framed this as a fight over democratic, powerful, worker-based unions vs.,boss run, weak, sellout, corporate-style unionism. As stated and shown in the attached letter from UHW executive board workers, he has also sponsored real grass-roots worker activism. Still, some facts stand out as red flags, warning activists not to take things at face value:

• Rosselli agreed to and enforced for years the 2003 agreement that blocked nursing care workers in his local from making public management’s mistreatment of patients and overworking the workforce.

• Rosselli authorized the internal union study of that agreement’s harmful effects on workers and patients ONLY AFTER Stern threatened to take out 65,000 of Rosselli’s 140,000 members and AFTER Stern froze Rosselli out of negotiations.

• Rosselli practices corporate partnership with Kaiser Permanente , California’s largest health care provider. That partnership deal helped kill an organizing drive by California Nurses Association to force Kaiser to increase nursing staff care for patients; instead, corporate management now has veto power over any proposed workload changes.

Thus, we’ve got a fight within the ‘partnership’ camp, but bigger. Within this conflict, SEIU activists have organized a new group, called S.M.A.R.T with a website: _www.seiureform.org_ (http://www.seiu reform.org) .

The challenge is to build an opposition to Stern/Rosselli’s ‘partnership pact’ while building on the rank-and-file movement Rosselli has sponsored. The trick will be making concrete steps towards winning tangible reforms, in a way that also builds confidence, power and organization.

• Concretely, this starts from campaigning publicly for better conditions and more workers. Lerning from teacher’s union militants, one slogan could be “Our working conditions are your living conditions.”

• Another would be to campaign for publicly funded, national health care. This means breaking from deals to get more tax money for the profit-first operators in order to get some trickle-down for workers. That approach divides healthcare workers from others, taking our taxes to pay your employers, with peanuts for workers. Instead, campaigning for Canadian-style single-payer or the broader, British National Health Service mode would mean “Healthcare for All! Kick the profiteers our of our healthcare!” A path towards unity and real gains, not peanuts and passivity.

“fighting with one arm tied behind our backs”

The current mantra in some union reform movements is ‘rank and file democracy’ as if this alone will solve our problems. I disagree. Democracy and worker-based resistance are absolutely necessary to stand up to corporate greed and their attacks on workers, period.

What’s more, democracy enables us to find the best path, the best ideas, choose the best leaders and hold them accountable. This also teaches us to work together, to plan for our common good. Thus, we build for now and prepare the ground for a future social system based on meeting everyday life needs for all, based on actual solidarity, with respect for all,and the growth of everybody’s potential. Democracy is vital, like oxygen.

Even so, democracy alone is not enough. It’s like running a race on one good leg. Not enough, is it? Would you want to fight with one

arm against a powerful opponent with two good arms? Simply opposing the hardships of the corporate agenda is not enough. Rank-and-file democracy alone does not tell us how to fight the corporate agenda and power. We need positive alternatives; class struggle-solidarity unionism is such an alternative- one with real promise. We need organizing that fights for working class interests, like healthcare for all. It means creating solidarity in action opposing corporate globalization with the vision and strategy of global solidarity, not retreating to nationalist protectionism, like th UAW did in the ‘70s. For those who begin to question capitalism, this offers a way to create a world free of capitalist domination. Towards a world of freely associated working people, not people daily chained to working under corporate capital’s agenda.

Union caucuses are one way to fight back. They also begin to make real links instead of the go – it- alone reality of most unions. That’s where the outlook and practical fights for better working/

living conditions and publicly-funded healthcare have promise. These are concrete actions that counter ‘business-as-usual’ unionism. They could inspire real tangible support for

workers and union leaders making such moves. This could break though, making unions central to everyday life for millions of ‘ordinary people’. They could generate the support unions need now, more than ever. We are all connected like the cells in our body. The body is global capitalism. We, the cells that make it work, are like our immune system, only imbued with consciousness. We face the same implacable, inhuman, profits – above – all corporate agenda that generated today’s economic recession and real human suffering. We

have the same corporate face, from Chicago to China. We also have the capacity to link up into an effective immune response to cancer.

Solidarity isn’t just a nice idea; it’s a necessity and reality-based. The employers need to accumulate profits, using whatever they can, whether it’s technology to replace more expensive labor or cheaper labor. This drive generates our resistance, if only to defend ourselves, our families, and to fight for our future. Workers face this, mostly alone or in one plant or city or country. This class-based unionism has the potential to link us up, conscious of ourselves and our potential.

The internal SEIU fight between Stern and Rosselli opens up space for this resistance to grow. This resistance comes up just as naturally as the sun rises. It develops organically, just as our personal relationships do. Our understanding and creativity guide us as we face powerful opponents in corporate power and their union partners. We develop our democratic, cooperative, solidarity tools of struggle and resistance, just as car mechanics use the tools available to get the job done. We face many choices; nothing is predetermined. The outcomes will come from the conscious efforts of so many workers linked as cells in one body, just as the SEIU workers are linked with us all by the very system we live under. Their fight can add to the brewing movements for change, to benefit us all.

We all need to support and nourish them as we would our personal friends and family

In solidarity, Earl Silbar. Thanks to everyone for your help. You know who you are! Of course, all mistakes are my responsibility.

Source: http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=73

22 Feb

Union declares impasse in contract talks with L.A. County

Contract negotiations between Los Angeles County and its largest public employee union hit new lows, with the union declaring an impasse and county leaders preparing for a possible strike by social workers Thursday.

Hundreds of administrators in the county’s Department of Children and Family Services are preparing to fill in for social workers in the event that as many as 4,000 strike on Thursday, said county spokesman David Sommers. Chief Executive Officer William T Fujioka also sent a memo to all department heads reminding them about pay and discipline policies for employee strikes or sick-outs.

“County management is aware of the potential for targeted, isolated work actions in response to these latest developments,” Sommers said. “Employees are legally entitled to engage in work actions, but they are not entitled to pay during their participation.”

Service Employees International Union, Local 721, which represents 55,000 county employees including the social workers, also declared an impasse in contract talks Tuesday night, an escalation of tensions. Union members have been working without a contract for more than two months, and members voted to authorize a possible strike last month.

Marathon negotiations have produced several agreements, including a 6% raise, increasing health premiums and a $500 bonus in 2014. But two main obstacles remain — the union’s desire to reduce social worker caseloads and the timing of the raise.

Labor leaders would like to see the same amount of money in raises as if they had settled before their contract expired Sept. 30. County officials say this would violate a long-held policy against retroactivity.

County officials are depriving union members “out of at least two months’ salary increase,” the union wrote to its members Tuesday night.

Social worker caseloads have been a long-standing controversy, and were the subject of a protest Tuesday afternoon outside the county Board of Supervisors’ weekly meeting.

“We’re asking the Board of Supervisors to do the right thing,” said union Regional Director Michael Green, standing in front of a pile of stuffed teddy bears and scores of social workers holding signs that read “Child Safety Now!”

“Their voices have been ignored,” Green said. “Now we’re at a tipping point.”

Negotiators were meeting feverishly Wednesday afternoon, with news about whether the strike would occur expected by this evening.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/04/local/la-me-ln-labor-inpass-20131204

22 Jan

Probation Officers Assn. Merges With Larger Local : Labor: The vote makes Service Employees International Union, Local 102 the second largest union for county workers.

The Service Employees International Union, Local 102 became the second-largest county workers’ union Monday when it merged with the 748-member San Diego County Probation Officers Assn.

As a result of the merger, Local 102 represents more than 2,000 county employees, second only to the troubled County Employees Assn., which has about 6,500 members.

The merger is significant because it represents the second major county unit to merge with a bigger union in recent months, as county officials discuss proposed cutbacks for 1991 because of a budget crunch.

Last year, about 400 Superior Court employees merged with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 127.

“We’re tired of year after year going to the bargaining table, presenting reasonable arguments and winning nothing,” said Don Reeves, executive director of the Probation Officers Assn. “It’s been clear to us for some time that it’s been a futile endeavor. We voted overwhelmingly to go with Local 102 because it’s an aggressive and very professional union.”

The probation officers’ contract with the county expired in December, and both sides have been negotiating a contract since October. Salaries for probation officers range from $17,000 to $35,000 annually, Reeves said.

According to Reeves, wages and the length of a contract are the main stumbling blocks in the negotiations. The county has offered the group a 30-month contract, while the association seeks an 18-month pact.

Most county workers are represented by the County Employees Assn., which at one time was the largest independent union in the state. However, in the past three years, the association has been torn apart by dissension. Former General Manager Wyleen Luoma and her top aide were fired last year when allegations of misconduct and abuse of authority were leveled at Luoma.

A new CEA executive board has failed to heal the differences among the various units, which range from office workers and professionals to blue-collar employees. Leaders of some units represented by the CEA have said they are afraid the group is too weak and in too much turmoil to represent workers who may be threatened by the proposed cutbacks.

Consequently, nervous workers from some units are hoping to merge with an outside union.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-05/local/me-520_1_service-employees-international-union

22 Dec

Bill Clinton Rallies Some of His Old New York Friends

In the years since he left the White House, former President Bill Clinton has become a New Yorker. He has an office in Harlem, sits in courtside seats at Nets games and spends summers days in exclusive Hamptons enclaves.

He has also spent years schmoozing with nearly every Democratic elected official, union leader and constituency that makes this raucous city work.

Those relationships are paying off as the Democratic contest heads to the April 19 primary in New York and Hillary Clinton looks to defeat SenatorBernie Sanders of Vermont in the state where she served as a United States senator. It is also where she and her husband had had resounding victories in previous primary campaigns.

As Mrs. Clinton held a rally in Purchase, N.Y., on Thursday before heading to Syracuse on Friday, Mr. Clinton crisscrossed Manhattan hosting campaign events with union members and mostly minority voters.

“The New York primary and the psychological impact it will have on the rest of the country and the rest of this race is not — I don’t have the words to explain it,” Mr. Clinton, who is not typically at a loss for words, told members of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York on Thursday afternoon in the city’s Flatiron district. “I can just tell you that, for her, it means more than you will ever know.”

As Mr. Sanders hopes for an upset to humiliate Mrs. Clinton on her home turf and revive his underdog candidacy, the Clintons are grinding for a New York victory that will solidify her delegate lead and put a proverbial lid on any doubts about her candidacy.

“Look, this primary is really important,” Mr. Clinton said Thursday. “It’s important to her personally because she loved being a senator, and she knows this state and she knows what its promise is.”

By the late afternoon, Mr. Clinton was talking to teachers in Battery Park City and reciting exact polling data from when Mrs. Clinton ran for the Senate in New York in 2000 (“The last poll said she was three points ahead,” he said. “She won by 12.”) and about her approval rating (“When she left the State Department job, she had 69 percent approval rating.”)

Mr. Clinton’s work on behalf of his wife in New York has also been waged quietly and behind the scenes as he taps into decades-long relationships to help her win in the state.

On Monday, Mr. Clinton met with more than 50 religious and community leaders in Harlem and Queens to discuss issues that have particular resonance among African-Americans, like criminal justice reform. Representatives Charles B. Rangel and Gregory W. Meeks attended, along with Rev. Calvin O. Butts III of Abyssinian Baptist Church and City Councilwoman Inez E. Dickens.

The former president held similar meetings with Latino leaders in the Bronx at sessions that included Congressman José E. Serrano and Ruben Diaz Jr., the Bronx borough president.

On Thursday morning, Mr. Clinton, speaking to members of the Service Employees International Union in Midtown, recalled Mr. Diaz’s memories of his first visit to the Bronx in 1992.

“When Jimmy Carter came, he said, ‘Oh, the poor Bronx, we have to help them,’” Mr. Clinton said. “When Ronald Reagan came, he said, ‘Look at the Bronx, it’s a mess.’” But, Mr. Clinton, continued, “He said ‘When you came, you said I see the future.’”

“We always support who supports us,” said Ken Telford, 62, a union organizer who came to hear Mr. Clinton on Thursday

New Yorkers have not always been so welcoming.

In 1992, after rumors of infidelity rocked his presidential campaign, the then-governor of Arkansas had a rude awakening in New York. A New York Times article described him as “a smiling tourist who has made eye contact with the wrong pedestrian” and The New York Post ran the headline “Gennifer & Bill Romped in Our Apt: Ex-Roomie.”

But Mr. Clinton learned the city and its spheres of influence. He wore a skullcap to Brooklyn to talk to Hasidic Jews in Borough Park after his opponent, Jerry Brown , the former and current governor of California, had upset Jews by appearing with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had referred to New York as “Hymietown.”

On Wednesday, accepting an award from the Irish America Hall of Fame for his work on the peace process in Northern Ireland, Mr. Clinton recalled bonding with the Irish in New York, another group Mrs. Clinton will need in the primary.

“What happened to me — and it sort of happened to me — began here in this city, late at night, almost exactly 24 years ago when I was trying to win the New York primary,” he said.

That night, a group of powerful Irish-Americans and sympathizers, including Harold M. Ickes, a Clinton adviser, and former Representative Bruce Morrison of Connecticut, had assembled to talk to Mr. Clinton about the fighting that plagued Northern Ireland.

Years later, after Mr. Clinton helped to broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 that effectively ended the conflict in Northern Ireland, his daughter, Chelsea, wrote her senior thesis at Stanford about the history of Irish-American politics. “She said: ‘You know, Dad, you didn’t care about this when you came to New York. You just wanted the Irish to vote for you,’” Mr. Clinton recalled.

“Well, not quite, but close enough,” he said. “‘But afterward, you really did care,’” Mr. Clinton said his daughter had told him.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/us/politics/bill-clinton-revisits-old-friends-in-new-york-primary-campaign.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FService%20Employees%20International%20Union&_r=0