Wednesday, September 16, 2009

SEIU Local 521 Stern-Appointed President Kristy Sermersheim Fires Organizer Members

A good use of dues money?

San Jose, California
September 16, 2009

SEIU Local 521 does a good job defending the rights of workers, except when it comes to its own staff. Perhaps that's why local 521 management didn't see a problem in recently firing two of its hardest working staff representatives without any good reason.

Internal and external organizers in SEIU Local 521 are protected by a union contact negotiated by CWA Local 9423. That means that they have the same rights to due process, progressive discipline and just cause standards that SEIU members have in their contracts.

So why would employees of a labor union need the protection of a union contract? Because a bad boss is a bad boss, no matter who they work for.

(Click on images below to read more.)

Infighting Is Blunting Labor's Clout

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/07iht-letter.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=andy stern&st=cse

September 7, 2009
LETTER FROM WASHINGTON
Infighting Is Blunting Labor's Clout
By ALBERT R. HUNT
WASHINGTON — This should be a renaissance for the American labor movement.
Unions played a big role in electing President Barack Obama last year and supported more winning members of Congress than at any time in ages.
Moreover, labor should offer an antidote to any corporate greed and malfeasance. A sound economic expansion requires “benefits that are more broadly shared,” says Larry Summers, the top White House economic adviser, and that requires “a healthy and well-functioning trade union movement.”
Yet on this weekend devoted to American labor, the optimism of only a few months ago is fraying. Important legislative initiatives seem stalled and schisms persist among leading unions.
“Labor should not be written off,” says Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor and education research at Cornell University, “but labor has been hard hit by the economy, by a well-organized business opposition and by its own mistakes.”
Labor did see a small increase in membership last year, reversing a long decline. Still, only about 12.4 percent of American workers belong to unions, including 7.6 percent of private industry employees, about half the level of a quarter-century ago. The hopes for gains in organizing by more aggressive groups like the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have been partially thwarted by economic dislocations.
The overhaul of the health care system, a top organized labor priority for decades, is in perilous shape in Congress. Especially grating to some union officials was the outpouring of opposition during the August recess; by contrast, not many union workers, at least ones who support the health care revamp, showed up at the town hall meetings held nationwide.
Labor leaders insist it’s not their members out there protesting and say the resistance is mostly political. “It’s organized by the right-wing elements in this country,” charges the Teamsters president, James Hoffa. “The people out there screaming and yelling, do you think these people voted for Obama? Those are basically people that are challenging his right to be president.” Perhaps. Yet more than a few Democratic elected officials in Washington say that suggests all the passion is with the health care reform opponents and not with their union backers.
And while labor leaders share the same goal, there are differences over how to get there. Mr. Hoffa says establishing a government-run entity to compete with private health insurers isn’t crucial for good legislation; Richard Trumka, likely to be the next president of the AFL-CIO, the main labor federation, says a bill without that so-called public option would be “useless.”
Labor’s other priority, a measure making it easier to organize workers, which unions say is necessary after years of Republican administrative decisions favoring business, is also encountering resistance in the Senate, even from some Democrats. It remains to be seen whether, sometime later this year, a compromise can be crafted that is acceptable to unions and those wavering Democrats, as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, vows.
If labor fails on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, it would be a huge blow and it would likely produce internal and political recriminations.
Recalcitrant Democrats may pay a price in the next election, officials warn.
“Those people out there who say they’re Democrats — and see our ideas and can’t back us on something that’s so basic as this — we’re definitely scoring,” Mr. Hoffa said, adding that they saw this issue as a “litmus test.”
Some analysts wonder whether labor can be effective on both legislative and political matters when it is divided. Four years ago, seven unions, including the Service Employees, the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers, broke from the AFL-CIO, which they said wasn’t aggressive enough in organizing and on other matters. They formed the “Change to Win” coalition.
There are moves to get these factions back together so labor can present a more united front. A former Michigan congressman, David Bonior, has been tapped to try to reconcile some issues. It’s a tough task.
Originally, it was thought unity might occur after the current AFL-CIO president, John Sweeney, stepped down. Mr. Sweeney and Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees, are enemies. The federation, however, has tapped Mr. Trumka, former head of the mine workers, to succeed Mr. Sweeney this month; his relations with Mr. Hoffa and some other Change to Win leaders are also said to be bad.
A few of the Change to Win unions, most importantly the United Food and Commercial Workers, might rejoin the old federation, and Change to Win is full of its own discord. But leaders like Mr. Stern and Mr. Hoffa say they have no intention of joining forces with their old adversaries.
“They’re going to fail if they keep this fight going,” Professor Bronfenbrenner says.
Even some top AFL-CIO officials worry that she’s right. “Labor unity would get us out of our comfort zone, which we can ill afford right now,” says the president of one major AFL-CIO union, who requested anonymity because of the friction.
Labor ultimately has to rely on the White House. The Obama administration has made some important administrative decisions, such as favoring federal contracts for firms that are unionized and making key appointments to the Labor Department and regulatory bodies that are far more labor-friendly than were the Republicans.
There are tensions, too. Unions wish the administration would push harder on the Employee Free Choice Act; Obama aides say health care comes first. And labor leaders are unhappy over what they see as the White House’s coziness with Wall Street and the president’s refusal to adopt a protectionist agenda.
There are Democratic politicians including Mr. Bonior and the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, who could serve as a bridge over disagreements.
However, the most cohesive influence with all elements of labor — indeed, unions’ leading political ally for decades — and with other Democrats was the recently deceased Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
Albert R. Hunt is a columnist for Bloomberg News.
E-mail: pagetwo@iht.com

How the UFW dug itself into a hole over water And CTW-SEIU Stern's Costly Fiascos Wastes More Union Dues

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pawel9-2009sep09,0,988967.story


How the UFW dug itself into a hole over water
The union threatened to oppose a water bond unless 'card-check' legislation passed. That backfired, and now it must deal with the difficult political and financial aftermath.

A year ago, when state legislators proposed a $9.8-billion water bond, United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez applauded: "We are very excited about that because we want to see a viable agricultural industry throughout the state of California; we want to see farmworkers employed."

Last week, Rodriguez created a political committee, bankrolled with $1 million from a national labor coalition, to oppose the very same idea.

It's not the interests of farmworkers that have changed; the UFW's about-face appears to have been a clumsy attempt at political blackmail.

In the final days of the legislative session, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger again insisted that he would sign a package of bills addressing the state's critical water needs only if it included a bond issue that would finance construction of dams or a canal to move water from north to south.

At the time the governor reiterated his ultimatum, a bill was sitting on his desk designed to make it easier for unions to organize farmworkers. The UFW would no longer have to win secret-ballot elections to represent workers; it could simply collect signed cards from a majority of employees at a particular ranch.

Schwarzenegger has vetoed similar bills three times, so this time the UFW opted for a new tactic -- a veiled threat that unless the governor signed SB 789, the union would oppose the water bond he wanted.

The linkage was convoluted at best. "Before considering any state water deal, lawmakers and the governor must ensure that farmworkers have access to clean, cool drinking water and shade," state Democratic Party Chairman John Burton wrote in a note suggesting UFW supporters lobby the governor. " ... [T]he only recourse for farmworkers to protect themselves would be through the collective bargaining process as provided for in SB 789."

The UFW's bill dovetailed with the national labor movement's top priority -- legislation to create a similar "card-check" mechanism on the federal level. Unions consider the change vital to offset rules that enable employers to stall elections and intimidate workers. A card-check law for California farmworkers might help propel the national bill, which is why Change to Win, a six-union coalition led by the Service Employees International Union, donated $1 million to fund the UFW's anti-water-bond campaign.

The move backfired. One of the governor's top advisors denounced it as an "intimidation tactic," and Schwarzenegger plucked the UFW bill from the stack of pending laws and vetoed it.

That left the UFW trying to justify a position at odds with its historic support for water bonds, which Rodriguez once hailed as "good for both growers and farmworkers." Last week, the union's organizing director offered this remarkable rationale for the union's opposition to water bonds: If more water is available for agriculture, UFW Vice President Armando Elenes wrote in a note to a longtime UFW supporter who then posted it on an Internet listserv,the growers will "continue abusing the workers and the jobs that will be created will not be good jobs."

That no se puede attitude shouldn't come as a surprise to leaders of Change to Win, formed in 2005 with the promise that the new collaboration would increase union membership. One of the coalition's first ventures was a million-dollar organizing campaign in the San Joaquin Valley vineyards, an attempt to revitalize the UFW and turn around a legacy of neglect in the fields. The large unions in Change to Win poured in people and dollars to help their tiny partner, but the campaign failed. The UFW could not repair decades of mistrust in a few short weeks, and a majority of workers at a large vineyard voted decisively against joining the union. In the three years since, workers have decertified the UFW at several of the remaining California workplaces where it has contracts, and the union represents only a tiny fraction of farmworkers in the state.

Those members' dues last year totaled just over $2.5 million, according to federal filings, and the UFW reports barely $100,000 in its long dormant political action committee. So the $1-million donation from Change to Win represents a significant windfall.

It's not a huge sum for Change to Win, but when SEIU President Andy Stern led the coalition's exodus from the AFL-CIO, he promised that Change to Win would focus on effective organizing. Stern is currently enmeshed in costly, divisive fights on several fronts: He is fighting the union representing his own employees; fighting the deposed leaders of a California healthcare local; fighting his former ally, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, and fighting the Schwarzenegger administration over furloughs and budget cuts -- all at a time when the labor movement has an extraordinary opportunity to make national gains with a sympathetic administration and Congress.

Now that the water-bond-for-card-check gambit has failed, Stern might want to reconsider and redirect Change to Win's $1 million into a fight that actually benefits workers, rather than one aimed at eliminating their jobs. And the UFW might want to stop finding excuses and begin the difficult work necessary to take advantage of the 1975 law that makes California the only state where farmworkers have the right to union elections.

Miriam Pawel is the author of the forthcoming book "The Union of Their Dreams: Power, Hope, and Struggle in Cesar Chavez's Farm Worker Movement."

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

New stage in super bureaucratization of labor

http://bensonsudblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-stage-in-super-bureaucratization-of.html


FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 04, 2009
New stage in super bureaucratization of labor

Four locals in California, with a combined membership of 40,000 janitorial service workers, were ordered by SEIU President Andy Stern to join together in a new district council called United Service Workers-West. Here is something drastically new in the SEIU. Unlike the various mega locals created earlier by Stern by dissolving several locals into one, these four locals each retain a separate existence, but only as desiccated shells deprived of substance.

Because the council is a "new" labor organization, Stern is allowed by federal law to appoint all its officers; and because the council is not a local but an "intermediate" organization, they hold office for the next four years. Not a man to evade appointive opportunities, Stern has chosen the council's three top officers and the 23 additional executive board members. In decreeing the council's formation on March 11, Stern prescribes its authority by informing his appointees, "I hereby impose the attached provisional Bylaws for USWW." Provisional? But it's impossible to change these bylaws without Stern's O.K. Only the executive board can amend the bylaws and then only by a 75% vote at two consecutive meetings. In any event, the imposed bylaws read, "No amendments shall be valid or become effective until approved by the International Union." Under these bylaws, the council swallows up the locals.

Locals are instantly rendered powerless by one simple device: they are stripped of authority over their own treasuries. One listed basic "function" assigned to the council is "the collection of the dues paid to affiliated locals." Elsewhere the bylaws make clear what that means: "In consideration of the services being provided by the USWW to the affiliated Local Unions, all affiliated Local Unions shall pay to USWW any dues which it collects from its members or USWW collects on behalf of an affiliated Local Union."

The council grabs all the money and then it---not the locals--- adopts "a budget for each affiliated local union, covering the resources devoted to servicing the members of the local union." With total control over the collection and distribution of money, the council inevitably assumes control over every significant phase of local activity. Almost everything requires money, including all phases of collective bargaining. At first glance, one may not notice that locals will actually lose control over collective bargaining. But you must read the bylaw double talk with care:

Among the basic council functions are these: to "bargain [and] ...enforce collective bargaining agreements on behalf of affiliated local unions." That aim seems qualified by the words, "nothing in these Bylaws are intended to supplant or suspend the collective bargaining rights of any Local Union," a qualification that is reassuring only until you read on: "A Local Union may voluntarily transfer its collective bargaining rights to USWW."

Putting it together: Any local which "voluntarily" refuses to cede control over collective bargaining to the council, can be financially starved of the resources necessary to conduct its own effective collective bargaining and so forced into submission. It can't happen here, you will say? Then you don't know where Stern is taking the SEIU.

The locals have no right to their own money. The council president is endowed with sweeping financial powers. He or she is authorized to hire and fire and direct the whole council paid staff and set their rate of pay and to retain attorneys, accountants, and other consultants. The president is insulated from membership control.

Because the council is an intermediary body, not a local, the president, despite those enormous powers, is not elected by the membership but by a delegated body, in this case by the council executive board. After their four-year appointive term is up, executive board members will be elected by the locals, but that status does not give them a paid job. The president's power of the purse extends even to those who have the constitutional power to elect him or her. An executive board member depends upon the president for a paid staff job.

In the old style SEIU, the now-familiar mega locals remain formally autonomous; they collect and retain dues; their members elect local officers; they are responsible for organizing, collective bargaining, processing trials and charges --- all the authority and responsibility traditionally vested in local unions remains. With the new California janitors council, the role of locals is transformed. To sum it up:

The council takes over dues and assessments. As required by federal law, after the appointive term has ended local members will be permitted to elect local officers, but not necessarily to pay them. Money for all salaries, including for elected local officers, depends upon decision of the council. Who pays the piper calls the tune. Without independent access to money, local members lose control over their own locals. The handling of grievances and the processing of charges and trials are removed a greater distance away from the membership. The council dominates the locals; the international president, through his appointive power, dominates the council.

In all this, the SEIU draws upon an organizational form that has been perfected by its Change to Win partner, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. But there is this crucial difference: What the Carpenters have created impinges only upon the construction trades. But Andy Stern, SEIU president, has pretensions of emerging as the great new leader of American labor. What he has fabricated in California, therefore, has broad significance as a portent of how he would shape the emerging new labor movement.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Quest for democracy persists inside SEIU

http://www.uniondemocracy.com/UDR/193-Quest_for_democracy_persists_inside_SEIU.htm

From the May-June 2009 issue of Union Democracy Review #179
Quest for democracy persists inside SEIU

While attention is riveted on the bitter battle in California between the Service Employees International Union and the new National Union of Healthcare Workers, many SEIU members who are not involved in that conflict are convinced that their road to union reform remains inside the SEIU in a continuing campaign to democratize the union. And they can report some successes, notably in Massachusetts Local 888 and in California Local 521. At the SEIU convention in June last year, rank and filers from several locals came together in a reform caucus, SMART --- for SEIU Members Active for Reform Today. The caucus organized as a permanent body after the convention.
In Massachusetts Local 888
By Ferd Wulkan
In an election last year, an insurgent caucus defeated the local administration that had originally been appointed by International President Andy Stern. Author Ferd Wulkan was an SEIU field rep for 13 years, serving non-faculty professional personnel at the University of Massachusetts.
SEIU Local 888 was created in 2003 in a wholesale reorganization of SEIU's Massachusetts locals. In reducing the number of locals, a new public sector local was created, one that would be unquestionably loyal to the International. Susana Segat, a longtime employee of the International was appointed president. When a new local is created, the appointed leadership can stay in office for three years before an election must be held.
The best organized and most militantly democratic portion of the local were workers at the University of Massachusetts. Fiercely trying to preserve their democratic heritage and practices, and frustrated by the divisive and controlling administration, over 2,000 of them ultimately left SEIU and joined the Massachusetts Teachers Association/NEA. [The 2008 insurgent victory is especially impressive, coming after so many natural opposition supporters had left the local. Ed.]
With all the advantages of incumbency, and with the potential core of the opposition out of the local, the Segat slate easily won in the 2006 election. Her opponent, Bruce Boccardy, ran a pro-democracy campaign, but one that was over-confident, under-financed, and too short. In 2008, however, he defeated Segat by a large majority. [Of the local's 9,000 members, 1,815 voted. Boccardy defeated Segat by 1,025-730. His slate carried all contested positions by similar majorities. Ed.] Ironically, Tony Koumantzelis, his candidate for the #2 spot, is a member of the only UMass bargaining unit that had voted to remain in the SEIU when all the others left. This time, Boccardy and Koumantzelis started their campaign early, hired an experienced campaign manager, used their time effectively, recruited a broad group of supporters, and ran a member-to-member campaign.
They heard member complaints all across the state, many about minimal servicing by the local. This was not surprising, since Segat had eliminated most of the service rep positions. Ironically, this meant she lacked the traditional incumbent-beholden staff to promote her campaign. While democratic-minded unionists are celebrating, the new leadership must overcome some potential barriers to turning Local 888 into a powerful democratic local:
1. The economy. Most Local 888 members work for cities and towns; with the Massachusetts budget crumbling, the local will have its hands full fighting layoffs and cutbacks.
2. Local finances. Units have decertified. Under Segat, the local ran a deficit every year. It is difficult to run a local efficiently when it has 9,000 members scattered in 200 bargaining units.
SMART
SMART first surfaced on the eve of the SEIU international convention in 2008, announcing its aim to "preserve union democracy and member-driven decision-making and involvement." Larry Bradshaw, elected as a delegate from his paramedic chapter of San Francisco Local 1021, writes of how these "previously unknown and politically unconnected rank-and-file workers" got together at the convention. "For most of us aligned with SMART," he wrote, "it was our first SEIU international convention. Consequently 'we' were rag-tag, clumsy, and easily outmaneuvered." Yet, when the delegates elected officers, SMART candidates "garnered between 4% and 16% of the vote." In the year since the convention, they remain active, better organized, and with their own website. They saturate their own e-mail boxes and yours with exchanges of information and comments on day-to-day events in the union.
At the convention and after, SMART supported Rosselli's UHW-W in its defensive battles, but they were not swallowed up by it. In an Open Letter, SMART denounced Stern's trusteeship over UHW. When the Rosselli forces were impelled to leave the SEIU and found their own National Union of Healthcare Workers, independent and rival to the SEIU, SMART remained in the SEIU to continue its campaign for democracy within it. That position was made clear in April in a statement submitted by the SMART committee for vote by its membership:
"SMART takes an officially neutral position on whether SEIU members who belong to UHW-W should fight for reform by staying inside SEIU," it reads, "or by leaving SEIU and fighting for reform from the outside. We recognize the extreme and unusual circumstances members of UHW-W now face....We regret that the rank-and-file are leaving SEIU, and we blame the SEIU administration for that loss."
The statement goes on to criticize the forcible merger of locals to suppress dissent. While recognizing that "many of our new locals are bureaucratic monoliths," it reaffirms that "SMART is about reforming SEIU in order to build a strong, democratic, and effective union.... Secession, by itself, does not build member power. While a particular group or local might solve its problems by leaving, it does not address the needs of all other SEIU members." It asks the new NUHW "to refrain from undermining the efforts of SMART reform activists inside SEIU" and calls for "greater dialog between reform activists within SEIU and reform activists who have left SEIU...."
On "raiding," the statement projects a position, or a hope, that is admirable in principle but difficult to sustain in practice. It asks NUHW "to cease from raiding SEIU locals or chapters where UHW-W has never represented any of the members...." And it "calls upon the SEIU International to stop raiding UNITE/HERE or any other unions." Unfortunately, embattled unionists often decide that the best defense is offense.
In Local 521
With its 55,000 members, Local 521 was one of those California mega locals created by Andy Stern (521= five locals into one). As in a new local, he appointed all its officers. Candidates for appointment were required to sign a loyalty oath. Despite all the advantages of their imposed incumbency, the appointed administration ran into trouble. In December this year, after disputes over democracy-related issues in local contests that were unrelated to the big battle between the SEIU and the NUHW, insurgent groups defeated administration candidates in two of the local's county chapters: in Monterey and Santa Clara counties.
In Santa Clara, a chapter of 11,000 public workers, incumbents had held office for eight years. But in December an insurgent Reform Slate, running under the slogan "It's our union," elected Vincent Reyna president and Wren Bradley deputy chair and carried most of the 19 contested spots with about 52% of the votes. In the Monterey Chapter, where 22% of the chapter's 3,500 members voted, insurgents won most of the 18 contests by a comfortable majority. Ben Franklin was elected president.
So far, encouragement for those who look for reform inside the SEIU. But the plot thickened in April when an NUHW release reported that 2,800 Monterey County workers had signed a petition with the county Public Employment Relations Board seeking to oust SEIU Local 521 as their bargaining agent and replace it with the new NUHW. In an ironic twist, according to the victorious SEIU Monterey insurgents, the old guard, who they had just defeated in their chapter, changed course, switched over to the NUHW, and are backing the decert effort!

3rd California Union Leader Gives Up Post

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-union31-2008aug31,0,2517852.story

The SEIU's top state officer takes a leave of absence and her ex-boyfriend is ordered to repay thousands of dollars

By Paul Pringle
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 31, 2008

The Service Employees International Union's top California officer has taken a leave of absence, and her former boyfriend has been ordered to return tens of thousands of dollars he received from the state council and Los Angeles local that she heads.

Annelle Grajeda is the third major SEIU leader to step aside following reports in The Times about the union's financial practices. The SEIU acknowledged Saturday that Grajeda was on leave as president of the L.A. local and the union's state council, and as an executive vice president of the national organization, because of allegations that she was improperly involved in the payments.

The union did not provide any details of Grajeda's purported role in the payment to the former boyfriend, Alejandro Stephens. The SEIU said it has demanded that Stephens, who was a longtime president of the Los Angeles chapter before it merged with several others, return the money.

An internal complaint filed Aug. 14 also accuses Stephens of remaining on the Los Angeles County payroll while drawing a salary from the union. Attempts to reach Stephens were unsuccessful.

Grajeda said Saturday that she was "very confident" the inquiry would conclude that she did nothing wrong. She said she could not discuss specifics. The inquiry is separate from a federal criminal investigation and congressional probe of another SEIU local in Los Angeles, which were prompted by a Times report earlier this month.

"Our serious concerns about these charges have been greatly elevated by the recently published article," states the complaint, brought by two members of Grajeda's local, which represents thousands of county employees including social workers, nurses and clerks. "We have grave concerns that this type of betrayal of public trust and malfeasance may be happening in our local union."

The SEIU is the nation's fastest-growing union, with 2 million members in North America and more than 700,000 in California. Grajeda's local has 77,000 members. She has been a close aide to its president, Andy Stern. The state council oversees the union's lobbying efforts in Sacramento and its get-out-the-vote drives.

In 2007, Stephens was paid nearly $14,000 by the Los Angeles office in "disbursements for official business" and $75,000 in consulting fees by the state council, according to the union's financial filings with the U.S. Labor Department.

As an SEIU executive board member, he also received more than $104,000 in salary and disbursements last year from the union's headquarters in Washington, D.C., records show. The filings indicate that the national office reimbursed the state council for the $75,000.

SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the $75,000 was part of a severance deal with Stephens when he was removed as local president because of the consolidation.

She said he violated the agreement by receiving money from the local and remaining on the county payroll as an employee. It was not known whether he received similar payments this year. In addition to the union payments, the complaint calls on the SEIU to investigate a nonprofit that is affiliated with the local and headed by Stephens. The most recently available tax records show that it has devoted only about 9% of its expenditures to its charitable programs.

In a letter to Ron Tanner and Arturo Diaz, the two local members who filed the complaint, SEIU's national office asked for more specific information. It also said the complaint about the charity was referred to the nonprofit's board.

Donna Meredith, the charity's vice chairwoman, said it was established after the 1994 Northridge quake to provide aid to union members affected by such disasters. She said it spent less than $15,000 on program services in 2006, the last year for which Internal Revenue Service reports are available, because it needed to build a reserve for future payments. "We have to keep putting funds into that," she said.

The nonprofit spent about $81,000 in 2006 on fundraising expenses, more than half its total outlays. Meredith said costs for the charity's fundraiser -- a 5K and 10K run -- were higher than expected. She defended Stephens' stewardship of the charity and his work for the union, labeling the complaints against him sour grapes by Tanner and Diaz. "He is doing what he is supposed to do," Meredith said of Stephens. "They are just unhappy with him because he is in charge."

Diaz denied that he and Tanner harbor any grudge against Stephens. "I think he's totally taken advantage of the membership," said Diaz, a county computer programmer.

Tanner, a county retiree who still belongs to the union, said Meredith's comment reflected "pure loyalty to Alejandro Stephens, whether he's wrong or right."

Previous Times reports have focused on the SEIU's largest California chapter, the United Long-Term Care Workers. The head of that local, Tyrone Freeman, has stepped aside because of the resulting investigations into its finances.

His former chief of state, Rickman Jackson, who is now president of SEIU's biggest Michigan chapter, also has taken a leave because of the probe.

The Times has reported that small companies run by Freeman's wife and mother-in-law got about $405,000 in 2006 and 2007 from the union and a charity he founded, among other expenditures. Freeman has denied any wrongdoing.

A housing corporation Freeman helped found used the address of a Bell Gardens home that property records show is owned by Jackson. Union and housing corporation officials have declined to say whether Jackson was paid for any use of his residence. Jackson has said in e-mails that he would have no comment on the matter.

paul.pringle@latimes.com

Stop salary discrimination against some city workersGuest Opinion

http://www.ebar.com/openforum/opforum.php?sec=guest_op


by Patrick Monette-Shaw


The city is poised to turn back the clock on nearly 25 years of gains providing comparable worth pay equity for women and people of color employed by the city. On September 16, between 1,500 and 2,000 layoff notices will be sent to city employees, disproportionally targeted to women and people of color in the lowest paid city jobs in the secretarial, clerical, and nursing assistant job classifications.
The city coyly refers to cutting employee salaries through forced demotions as "de-skilling." In reality, it involves "devaluing" work performed by these employees by lowering the value (amount) of their pay, while requiring them to continue performing essentially the same work.
In November 1986, San Francisco voters passed Proposition H, intended to correct the then decades-long practice of disproportionately underpaying women and minorities. Prop H required annual pay equity salary surveys, and provided a practical approach to gradually increase salaries to provide comparable worth. By 1991, sufficient gains had been made that voters then approved Proposition B, which eliminated setting salary raises based on surveys and instead implemented collective bargaining. Collective bargaining gains between 1991 and 2006 increased comparable worth pay equity for women and minority city employees.
Those gains are rapidly being undone by Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration, and have been for several years. Despite a labor agreement reached in June with Service Employees International Union that gave back $45 million in concessions to help balance the city's current budget, the mayor now wants to extract more from SEIU-represented employees.
As part of the $45 million in concessions, over 100 certified nursing assistant and clerical employees have already been unfairly demoted to lower-paid job classifications in the current fiscal year. Now, within just the Department of Public Health, an additional 400 city employees face demotion on November 15.
But across all city departments, 985 employees in the 1400-series clerical job classifications and 811 certified nursing assistants face 17.5 percent to 20.5 percent pay cuts in November. Some clerical employees will receive pay cuts of $10,530, while full-time nursing assistants will suffer $12,714 pay cuts annually. This will be devastating, and will wipe out salary gains hard fought for during the past 25 years.
These 1,800 employees are being asked to sacrifice another $11.2 million in salary discrimination this year, so the Newsom administration can maintain its bloated ranks of senior management.
If the 214 clerical people who earned less than $40,000 as part-time employees during calendar year 2008 are devalued and handed a 17.5 percent pay cut, they will then earn less than $33,000 annually. Similarly, of the 811 CNAs on the city's payroll during 2008, 255 – or 31.4 percent – were "as needed" and part-time employees who earned less than $30,000 annually in base pay. If they are de-skilled – read: devalued – these 255 dedicated part-time nursing assistants will earn less than $24,000 annually. The de-skilling of Laguna Honda Hospital's CNAs flies in the face of logic, since it contradicts a recent consultant report (required under the Laguna Honda Chambers settlement agreement) performed by Davis Ja and Associates that recommended increasing training and skills of LHH CNAs.
Apparently, keeping the ranks of managers with lucrative disposable incomes happy is a prerequisite for running for governor. Since Newsom became mayor in January 2004, the number of employees represented by the Management Executives Association has increased 19 percent with the addition of 168 managers between 2004 and 2008, according to data from the city controller. Between calendar years 2007 and 2008, managers in the 0900-series classifications earning more than $100,000 annually in base pay increased by 82 employees, at an additional cost of $9.5 million. Muni also added 20 managers earning more than $100,000 annually in the 9100-series classifications, costing another $2.8 million in base pay.
The combined $12.3 million increase in manager salaries stands in stark conflict with the $11.2 million clerical employees and nursing assistants are now expected to sacrifice.
Citywide, employees earning over $100,000 annually grew between calendar year 2007 and 2008 by 732 employees, costing an additional $111.2 million annually in base pay, overtime, and "other" pay.
In addition to the $45 million in SEIU budget concessions reached in June, things have grown worse for clerical employees and nursing assistants. Between the December end-of-year 2008 payroll and the city's end-of-June 2009 payroll, there are 342 fewer clerical employees in the 1400-series classifications (including unit clerks), 187 fewer nursing assistants, and 34 fewer licensed vocational nurses and psychiatric technicians in the 1300-series on the city's payroll. These 563 fewer employees – many of them part-time and "as-needed" employees – were double-crossed following their contract concessions, particularly since there are only 35 fewer managers in the 0900-series across these two payroll periods. While the mayor's office indicated last spring that all city employees would have to "share the pain" of budget cuts, it's clear that it's largely women and people of color in the lower job classification codes who are being vindictively punished by devaluing their salaries.
Between 2007 and 2008, a total of 3,797 public safety personnel (firefighters, police officers, and sheriff's deputies) earning over $100,000 (including an additional 298 safety employees) have seen their pay climb by $58.6 million to a total of $513.2 million, which is now probably much higher in 2009, since their pay is still driven by salary surveys despite collective bargaining. Their salaries are funded, in part, by devaluing clerical and nursing assistant salaries.
The San Francisco Democratic Party and the San Francisco Labor Council recently passed resolutions supporting comparable worth pay for city employees. In 1986, the Harvey Milk and Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic clubs supported Prop H for pay equity. Please join them, and several of the city's leading women's organizations, by contacting your district supervisor. Urge them to support a Comparable Worth Supplemental Budget Appropriation now being proposed in City Hall to stop turning back the clock on pay equity gains made over the past 25 years.
And remind the mayor that salary discrimination against women and people of color isn't a California value voters expect from their next governor.
Patrick Monette-Shaw is an open-government accountability advocate and has been a San Francisco budget watchdog for the past decade. Full disclosure: He is also a secretary employed by the city at Laguna Honda Hospital, and is the elected immediate past president of the Laguna Honda Hospital Ancillary Professionals Chapter of SEIU's former Local 790.

SEIU Stern Supporter In LA Pleads Guilty To Fraud And Tax Charges

,
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-newunion28-2009aug28,0,7657357.story

Ex-L.A. County union president to plead guilty to fraud, tax charges
The SEIU's Alejandro Stephens is accused of taking more than $50,000 in fees through bogus consulting contracts, documents say.
By Paul Pringle

August 27, 2009 | 11:28 p.m.

The former president of the union that represents Los Angeles County government workers has agreed to plead guilty to federal fraud and tax charges in connection with an alleged scheme to collect illicit consulting payments from a labor-related nonprofit, officials said Thursday.

Alejandro Stephens, a longtime leader of the Service Employees International Union local, signed an agreement to plead guilty to one count of filing a false income tax return and two counts of mail fraud, the U.S. attorney's office said.

He is accused of pocketing more than $50,000 in fees from the Voter Improvement Program through bogus consulting contracts, court documents say. The nonprofit was formed in the 1990s by the late Miguel Contreras, who was head of the L.A. County Federation of Labor.

The court documents refer to the nonprofit's founder only by the initials M.C. They allege that M.C. entered into an arrangement with Stephens to pay the fees to him and four associates in 2004 and 2005. The bulk of the money paid to the associates was funneled to Stephens, the documents say.

Stephens, 65, and his attorney could not be reached for comment late Thursday. Each fraud count against Stephens carries a maximum prison term of 20 years. The tax charge is punishable by up to three years in prison. Stephens is scheduled to appear in court Sept. 15.

Earlier this month, it was learned that federal authorities have been investigating whether Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar and former Board of Education member David Tokofsky received improper consultant payments from the Voter Improvement Program, sources familiar with the probe said. No charges have been brought against Huizar or Tokofsky. The payments under scrutiny were made in 2003 and 2004, sources said.

Stephens lost his union presidency in 2007 when his SEIU chapter, Local 660, merged with several others.

The county later fired him from his job, alleging he had refused to return to work after a lengthy leave.

paul.pringle@latimes.com

Times staff writer Richard Winton also contributed to this report.

Dennis Rivera Leads Labor Charge for Health Reform

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, Dennis Rivera was New York’s mightiest labor leader, running a union of 300,000 health care workers that often bent Albany to its will as it scared — and angered — governors, Democratic and Republican, with its hard-hitting ads.
Two summers ago, Mr. Rivera stepped down from that post and largely disappeared. But now, as President Obama’s health care push has run into trouble, Mr. Rivera has emerged as a central player in the effort to save Mr. Obama’s effort.
Mr. Rivera is the point man on health reform for the nation’s most politically powerful union, the Service Employees International Union, which is doing more than any other union to push for health legislation. In many ways, the White House is looking to the S.E.I.U. to lead labor in doing the blocking and tackling necessary for Mr. Obama to carry the ball forward.
At the same time, Washington insiders are impressed and surprised that it was a union leader — Mr. Rivera — who forged a coalition including giant drug makers, the health insurers, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association that helped secure their pledges to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in costs.
This summer, as high-decibel opponents have crowded into town hall meetings to denounce Mr. Obama’s reform effort, Mr. Rivera, working with other unions, has sent hundreds of labor activists to such meetings to counter opponents.
“We’re running this campaign like this was a presidential campaign, and our candidate is health care reform,” said Mr. Rivera, whose union is hugely resented by Republicans for doing so much to elect Mr. Obama.
In recent days, Mr. Rivera has rushed to shore up support for reform by meeting with conservative Democrats and one of the few Republicans who may still back reform.
“Dennis has been one of the few key players on health care,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.
Many liberals adore the S.E.I.U. — and many conservatives detest it — because it relentlessly pushed to make universal coverage a major issue in last year’s presidential campaign and more recently championed a government-run health plan aimed at pressuring private insurers to reduce costs and premiums.
Many conservative skeptics ask why a union that represents one million hospital and nursing home workers is suddenly pushing for cost containment after decades of championing higher health spending, in part to ensure members’ jobs and raises. On the other side, many in the union fear that cost containment will translate into layoffs.
After years of battling efforts by New York governors to cut health costs, Mr. Rivera now says a nationwide cost containment effort is necessary to help enact universal health coverage. Such coverage — and the greater spending it would entail — could help increase job security for many of his union’s members.
Many other unions are wondering about the service employees’ strange bedfellows, including the pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart Stores, which the union helped persuade to back reform.
“If the business community, the pharmaceutical industry and Wal-Mart all opposed health care reform, this bill would be dead,” said Andrew Stern, the S.E.I.U.’s president. “What keeps it alive is that conservatives are isolated from their traditional business base. The business community appreciates that our country needs to do something about health care.”
Mr. Stern said his union picked Mr. Rivera to oversee its health care campaign because “we needed our General Petraeus to win this war.”
Mr. Rivera commands a much smaller army: 400 union staff members working full time for health care reform, an unusually large lobbying force that is part of the tens of millions of dollars the union has devoted to the campaign. In Maine, Montana, North Dakota and a dozen other states, the union’s activists have held news conferences and written op-ed articles decrying America’s health care system, all to push lawmakers to back reform.
After 18 years running the giant New York local, 1199/S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East, Mr. Rivera has grown comfortable in Washington. He now wears suits, after years of wearing a $5 navy blazer he bought at a thrift shop. Soft-spoken, thin and 59 years old, he talks with hints of his native Puerto Rico, where his father was a factory manager.
“There is no peace of mind about health care for anyone in America unless you’re a zillionaire,” he said. “Anyone who doesn’t have insurance knows how hellish it is to have a health problem.”
The coalition he formed with business helped lead the pharmaceutical industry to pledge $80 billion in cuts and the hospital industry $150 billion. Though nonbinding, these pledges have buttressed Mr. Obama’s assertions that reform will not bust the budget, although the Congressional Budget Office says his plan does too little to curb runaway health spending.
Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ group, opposes a public plan but cooperates with Mr. Rivera on reform.
“By force of personality,” she said, “he has been a very important part of the stakeholder community in sounding the theme of cost containment and the importance of teeing up this issue.”
His cost-cutting crusade has not spared him conservative opprobrium. Glenn Beck singled him out for attack on Fox News, while Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, said Mr. Rivera’s support for a public plan was sabotaging cost containment.
“S.E.I.U. is the money and the muscle behind any momentum there is left for a public plan,” Mr. Cantor said. “If they think the only way to bring down costs is for the government to be involved, that’s counterintuitive to what we’ve seen in this country.”
In June, Mr. Rivera took his friend Mayor Michael Bloomberg to meet with Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, to urge her to support health reform. Mr. Rivera has urged her to back a public plan, hoping she might be the 60th Senate vote needed to overcome a filibuster. To win her over, he is considering her proposal for a trigger mechanism that would create a public plan, perhaps when one health insurer dominates a state or when premiums are unusually high, as is the case in Maine.
Ms. Snowe praised his “very constructive outreach” and lauded his union for “helping get the facts out.” The union has sent a rented ambulance around Maine to publicize horror stories about the uninsured. Such efforts make it easier for Ms. Snowe and conservative Democrats to back reform.
Mr. Rivera acknowledged that some union members could lose their jobs if health care was overhauled — for instance, hospital workers who file patients’ charts could be laid off if electronic medical files became popular. Eager to reassure workers, he said those laid off should be retrained, with the promise of another health care job — as called for in 1199’s contract in New York.
In the end, Mr. Rivera says reform and universal coverage are the best options — for his union’s members and for the country. “The amount we spend on health coverage is unsustainable,” he said. Health costs have risen so fast that many union members cannot afford health insurance.
“We’re not only providers of health care, but we’re consumers of health care.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/business/27union.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

Labor Council Rejects SEIU's Threats

Last week, one of the nation's largest labor councils rejected threats from a top SEIU official. The incident marks another low point in SEIU's growing isolation inside the U.S. labor movement.
Here's what happened: On August 15th, SEIU Executive Vice President and SEIU-UHW Trustee Dave Regan announced that he would stop SEIU's per capita payments to the San Francisco Labor Council unless one of the labor council's 150 affiliated unions - UNITE HERE Local 2 - ceases providing assistance to the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Local 2's president, Mike Casey, also serves as the labor council's president.
In addition, Regan threatened to directly attack Local 2, which is in the middle of contract negotiations covering 4,000 workers employed in San Francisco's hotel industry.
On August 21st, Regan attended a special meeting of the labor council's Executive Committee to discuss the issues. During the meeting, the leaders of San Francisco's largest labor unions reacted angrily to Regan's threats and expressed overwhelming support for UNITE HERE's Mike Casey.
According to minutes of the meeting, labor leaders alternatively described Regan's threats as "extortion," "bullying," "offensive" and "despicable." Dennis Kelly, the president of San Francisco's teachers' union, called SEIU "a blight on the labor movement."
Various labor leaders voiced their strong support for NUHW. For example, the president of an American Federation of Teachers local that represents city college instructors said, "UHW has been taken over by a predatory and undemocratic international union" and said he believes "the real leaders for healthcare workers are now with NUHW."
Mike Casey corrected SEIU's claims of responsibility for improving the wages and benefits of San Francisco's homecare workers: "Let's be clear who did the work on behalf of homecare workers in San Francisco. It was Sal Rosselli, former UHW staff and the union's rank-and-file leadership, not SEIU."
Meanwhile, labor leaders condemned SEIU's threats and its harmful effects on the labor movement. An Executive Board member of the office and professional workers union said, "what SEIU is doing is a continued weakening of the labor movement and its members, both locally and nationally." The president of the San Francisco Building Trades Council said SEIU's Andy Stern "has hurt every labor person" across the nation.
More at: http://www.nuhw.org/latest-news/2009/8/31/beyond-chron-sf-labor-council-backs-unite-here-local-2-rejec.html