721 Members Corner
Whats happening in our Local?
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 26th, 2008 at 8:30 am12 and is filed under Local 721.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
REQUEST FOR LOCAL 721 FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Mr. Burke, My name is Dan Mariscal and according to my paycheck from the City of Los Angeles, I’m paying 1.5% of my salary to SEIU Local 721. According to the SEIU International Constitution and By-laws I’m entitled to know, just like the rest of the dues paying members of Local 721, where my dues money is going and how it is spent. I’m entitled to a copy of the financial reports of Local 721, and I’m entitled to know what is being reported to the Department of Labor (LMRD) and also what is being reported to the Internal Revenue Service. I’m entitled to all such information since the Chartering of Local 721 on January 2, 2007. As you well know, there should be truthful and accurate record keeping of all of the Local 721 finances, not just on a fiscal year basis, but an accurate and truthful accounting of money that has thus far been spent since the Chartering of Local 721.
Today I came to the local 721 Hall, located on 500 S. Virgil Ave. and tried to contact you regarding obtaining Local 721 financial information. I was primarily interested in what was already available, at that time. I was told by the receptionist that I needed an appointment, although no such requirement exists. I contacted you to obtain this “appointment” and find out your scheduling availability. You were evasive and wanted to know “what specific information” I was after, because it may be “in a box”. Mr. Burke, the Local 721 union in not even 2 years old…there should be nothing that would have to be stored “in a box”. You wanted my request of “specific information” in writing. Mr. Burke, if you don’t have ANY financial information already prepared, then this raises a very large RED FLAG. You also, balked at my request to obtain photocopies of my requested information. This also raises an even larger RED FLAG and gives cause to suspect that there are dealings that may not reflect the transparency that members are entitled to or were promised. Add to this the fact that you were the “accountant” when Alejandro Stephens was involved in the debacle reported by the LA Times that resulted in Ms. Grajeda’s abrupt leave.
That being said I hereby demand the following financial information of Local 721;
1) A copy of the complete monthly financial reports of Local 721 revenues, specific expenditures and specific disbursements from February 2007 to November of 2008. I also want the list of all the committees that had a budget and what that budget is/was during this time period.
2) A copy of all LM-2 documents and attachments filed with the Department of Labor for Fiscal Year 2007.
2) A copy of all IRS Form 990 and attachments filed with the Internal Revenue Service for the Fiscal Year 2007.
3) How much money, to date, local 721 has been contributing to the Member Resource Center (MRC), and whether the International has reimbursed 721, and/or intends to reimburse local 721, for any of the aforementioned funds or costs incurred with respect to the MRC.
4) How much money was expended to fund the General Assembly, which was held October 4, 2008 at the LA Convention Center and all costs associated with this event that were paid for by Local 721 revenue.
5) How much money was expended to fund the Christmas Party at the Bonaventure Hotel, December 2008, and all costs associated with this event that were paid for by Local 721 revenue.
6) Whether any audits were done as of 12-17-2008, that were paid for by Local 721 revenue. If said audits were done by a firm or person, I demand the name and address of such firm or person, as well as the amount of Local 721 revenue that was used in connection with this audit.
7) A comprehensive region by region breakdown of how much revenue is being generated by each region on a monthly basis, from February 2007 to October 2008.
9) I want to know how much of the local 721 revenue is being spent to lease the building being used for the Union, specifically at 500 S. Virgil Ave, on a monthly basis, from February 2007 to October 2008.
10) I want to know how much of the Local 721 revenue has spent on the building next door, across the parking lot from 500 S. Virgil Ave.
11) I want to know how much of the Local 721 revenue is being spent on the building housing the MRC, on a monthly basis (From February 2007 to October 2008), and whether or not the International has reimbursed local 721 or will reimburse local 721.
Please let me know when I can pick up copies of the requested Local 721 financial information.
Respectfully Submitted, Dan Mariscal
Understanding and Defending Past Practices
— David Cohen
Stewards need to know what a valid past practice is and what the past practices in their workplace are—to defend them from erosion by management. A past practice is any longstanding, frequent practice that is accepted and known by both union and management. Bona fide past practices are considered part of the contract, so grievances can be filed if management violates them. Be sure to check your contract for language that limits their use for grievances. In most cases management cannot end a past practice without first bargaining with the union. In some cases management must wait until contract negotiations to change a past practice.
There are three categories:
*
Contract-clarifying past practice, the strongest type. When contract language is vague or general, the practice clarifies the general language. For instance: Contract language reads, “The company will allow union stewards reasonable time off to attend union meetings.” For many years the company has allowed stewards to attend monthly union meetings and three times a year the district council meeting. This practice now clarifies and backs up what the contract means by “reasonable.”
With such a strong past practice, an employer must bargain to change it and cannot change it if the union doesn’t agree.
*
Independent past practice, not addressed by any contract language. Most often these are “benefits” that workers take for granted and so were not included in the contract.
Example: There have always been vending machines in the cafeteria and free parking in the company lot. Management cannot just do away with these benefits.
Management can terminate independent past practices under three conditions:
It can prove the original conditions that started the practice have changed significantly.
It can prove significant ongoing employee abuse of the practice.
It notifies the union during contract negotiations that it will end the practice during the next contract.
Even in the first two situations, the employer must bargain with the union before ending the practice.
Most arbitrators will not extend these past practice rights to work methods.
An example: Management wants workers to run three machines instead of two, claiming new technology makes them easier to run. The union probably cannot claim it is a past practice that workers run only two machines. However, the union can demand that management bargain over a change in working conditions.
*
Contract-conflicting past practice. These are the hardest to prove, with most arbitrators saying the contract should prevail. However, the arbitrator may rule in favor of practices that have existed for a long time, happen frequently, clearly conflict with the contract, and were clearly known to both parties.
For instance: The employer has never given union reps absentee “points” for attending union conventions, even though there are no such provisions in the contract. For 10 years, the union has notified management each time who would be attending. Although the practice conflicts with the contract, it probably would be considered valid.
The employer must notify the union of its intent to end this type of past practice and must bargain if the union requests.
The tests for a valid past practice are:
*
Has existed for a reasonably long time. The longer a practice has been in effect, the more weight it carries. Many arbitrators think that a practice must be three to five years old and must have been in practice during at least two contracts.
*
Occurs repeatedly, the more times the better. An exception might occur around a holiday. If every year for seven years management allows workers to go home early Christmas Eve, this could be a valid past practice.
*
Is clear and consistent, repeated the same way each time. If there are minor deviations, there must be at least a predominant pattern of consistency. An example: Management has always let workers accept personal phone calls. The union can document 100 times in the last five years. Management points out three occasions where workers were refused the right. The overwhelming pattern favors the union.
*
Must be known to both management and union. While a past practice does not have to be “negotiated,” it must be something that both parties know about. Sometimes it’s not good enough for a low-level foreman to know; it must be higher management. For instance: Workers have been leaving work a little early on Fridays for years. According to the absentee program, they should receive one point, but the foreman never gives points for Friday. Upper management finds out and decides to give everybody warnings. Management did not inform the union that it wanted to change the practice. However, since upper management did not know about this practice, it would be hard to argue that workers could continue to leave work early every Friday.
*
Must be accepted by both management and union. Often the fact that a practice occurs frequently over a long period of time indicates that the parties agree to it. A practice that is openly agreed to by both parties gains past practice status quicker than one that is not openly accepted.
An example: For many years workers have been allowed to line up at the time clock after the first bell rings, signifying five minutes till quitting time. A new boss says no one can line up till the quitting bell rings. The union has a strong case: the fact that management never did anything to stop this practice indicates acceptance.
When filing a grievance, gather plenty of evidence on how long and how frequently the practice took place, and how the employer knew about it. The more, the better.
David Cohen is an international rep, United Electrical Workers
This article is based on attorney Robert Schwartz’s book, How to Win Past Practice Grievances. It can be ordered from Work Rights Press.
Steward Focus Group-January 22, 2009
SEIU 721 Board Room 6:00 P.M.
500 S. Virgil Ave. Los Angeles Ca. 90020
Regarding the Member Resources Center [MRC]
RSVP: (877) 721-4968
- We had our first All Region Shop Steward’s Council meeting, by video-conference, on 01-10-09. There were approximately 7 members representing the Riverside County Region, approximately 12 members representing the Ventura County Region, 4 members at the Pasadena Office and approximately 55 members representing the Los Angeles Area (L.A. County/L.A. City). Information regarding upcoming events was exchanged among all of the membership. A clarification of a misconception by Ventura and Riverside members was stated, regarding the scheduling of what had been perceived as a mandatory meeting, decided by L.A. Area members, only, by the chair of the meeting, Kenn Turner. At the conclusion of the meeting, both, Ventura and Riverside County representatives stated that they could not commit to be available for monthly All Region Steward Council meetings without first consulting with their membership.
Arturo
Andy soon to be able to hide money spent due to Fed. government
From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990431323225179.html
Quantum of Solis
Big labor wants Obama to dilute union disclosure rules.
[...] The Secretary should “temporarily stay all financial reporting regulations that have not gone into effect,” and “revise or rescind the onerous and unreasonable new requirements,” such as the LM-2 and T-1 reporting forms. The explicit goal is to “restore the Department of Labor to its mission and role of advocating for, protecting and advancing the interests of workers.” In other words, while transparency is fine for business, unions are demanding a pass for themselves. …
Congratulations For Those Who Went To Sacramento On 1/23/2009
You must be delighted with your success in Sacramento. I was raining and cold and many Californian leaders absent that day.
You certaintly haven’t let the grass grow under your feet. No matter what we won, and may you enjoy many trips to Sacramento — each happier than the last.
This month is thrilled to hear about the gap that has come on 1/23/2009 (Sacramento again?). There were only 1000 members (a mixed one); even though we have passed the million.
In awe of all that some of us had done good to go to the capital using their own time!
You’ve topped everyone in the Union by faith and by love in this thrilled month — congratulations!
I could not be happier if it had happened to others.
I just heard the news –Lawmakers do not get the real message. They already have endorsed $6 billion in spending cuts that provide a painful picture of what we have done and how unstable we are in from of this solid ground of politicians.
I do not blame them but us. We are so well-spoken and highly convincing between walls, but in the openness, when it is time to kick on wet ground, we preferred the sensibility of the blankets and let us do it in meeting or in closing doors. These politicians know that, and they are very pleased with their endosed on cuts.
I understand that congratulations are in order: You, you, you and many others like you who went on 1/23/2009 and to try to lift the Union to its own standard; but many of you could not share in this happy occasion a slight feeling why so many of us cannot change the mind of Sacramento.
And please, don’t blame me.
I could not be happier if it had happened to me.
Hi,
Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!
Thank you
Elcorin
Hi, cool site, good writing
A Contract Campaign Across Unions
— Doug Swanson
As Wisconsin faces a nearly $6 billion budget deficit, state employee unions are determined to make sure the crisis isn’t “solved” on our backs. All union contracts with the state will expire June 30. As we strategize, we’re remembering our successful campaign—“A Deal’s a Deal”—from 2003.
In February 2003 a joint committee of the Wisconsin legislature refused to approve 16 agreements that had been ratified by the members of six state employees’ unions. Over the years, state employees had consistently been used as punching bags by many of the legislators holding the contracts hostage.
For years they had told citizens that high taxes were the fault of state employees, ignoring the fact that the employees implemented programs created by the legislators themselves. The unions needed to build support not just for the contracts but for the state workers who provided valued services.
‘A DEAL’S A DEAL’
The unions knew they needed a message that was short and clear. “A Deal’s a Deal!” was born. It didn’t matter whether you liked unions or state employees—everyone understood that a deal’s a deal.
If the politicians were allowed to dishonor an agreement negotiated with their employees, what would they back out of next? It was a message adaptable to any environment or audience.
The campaign depended on four factors: mobilized members; consistent individual efforts; intensive education of and pressure on legislators; and support from the public and the media.
To mobilize members statewide and in many different bargaining units, the unions used cross-union meetings. At that time most of the unions—American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin (AFT-W), National Education Association, Service Employees (SEIU), AFSCME, and the building trades—did not work well together. But through this crisis, walls came down and coalitions were built.
If the politicians were allowed to dishonor an agreement negotiated with their employees, what would they back out of next?
In buildings where members of multiple bargaining units worked, cross-union “brown bag” meetings were held and all members were encouraged to attend. Members would wear buttons in solidarity and share information from their locals and other state employee groups.
With each two-week cycle, the number of meetings grew as more members became involved. Flyers gave updates on the campaign and laid out what was coming next. They were easily distributed to members who didn’t come. AFT-W prepared a recording on an 800 number for an “update of the day.”
“A Deal’s a Deal” posters went up in work sites, and more than one were seen facing the state capitol building.
At the local Labor Temple in Madison, the state capital, ad hoc meetings were called every four to six weeks where anyone could talk about what was and was not being done.
The unions held rallies and vigils at the capitol building over lunch hours, organized through e-mails and the 800 number. AFSCME held rallies at prisons outside of Madison as well.
The unions created “union bucks” for members to pass out when they shopped or to enclose when they paid their bills. These were slips of paper about the size of a dollar bill, with a message on the front about the value state employees provided to the community and the Wisconsin economy.
The reverse was blank, and members were encouraged to write personal notes about their jobs. Members passed out the union bucks by the thousands.
One member wrote to each of the car dealers in his area detailing the age and model of his car. He said he had planned to replace his old car with the raise he would have received if the legislature had approved his contract.
His creativity spurred others to write to resorts and recreation centers in the districts where some legislative leaders lived.
EDUCATING LEGISLATORS
It was a challenge to educate new legislators on the valuable contributions of state employees, on how collective bargaining works, and on why contracts could not be changed once ratified. Members sent letters and e-mails and made calls, but more effective were face-to-face meetings, back at the district offices and at the capitol.
The campaign bought radio ads on the “A Deal’s a Deal” theme, and members wrote letters to the editor, articulating how unfair their contracts were when compared to the raises politicians were receiving.
If the politicians were allowed to bargain in bad faith, they argued, the government’s credibility would be called into question. These letters led to meetings with editorial boards from major papers around the state and drew significant attention to the campaign.
In May the contracts were sent back to the joint committee, unmodified. They went through the Assembly and the Senate and were finally signed by the governor.
The lasting effect of “A Deal’s A Deal” was the coalition built among the unions. Six years later, the coalition that the employer calls “the Gang of 18” still meets monthly.
Doug Swanson is a staff representative for AFT-Wisconsin.
On Tuesday, the SEIU said one of its highest-ranking officials, Annelle Grajeda, who went on leave last summer after the union began examining payments made to her former boyfriend, has resigned her leadership positions. Grajeda was an executive vice president of the national organization and head of the union’s California council and a Los Angeles local. The SEIU said its inquiry found that she committed no wrongdoing and that she had decided to become an assistant to the national union’s secretary-treasurer.
Full LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-union11-2009mar11,0,1928028.story
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Julio Asturias
Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: L.A. TimesAnnelle Grajeda SEIU Local 721 official in
California quits th…
To: SEIU721REFORMERS
*ADDING INSULT TO INJURY!*
ANELLE GRAJEDA MUST GO!
WE, THE ON THE LINE FIGHTERS, THE ONES WHO HAVE TO FACE ARROGANT BOSSES, THE
ONES THAT GET INTIMIDATED, RETALIATED AND DISRESPECTED, EIGHT, NINE OR
TEN HOURS PER DAY EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, THE ALL TIME DUE PAYERS; CALL UPON
ANELLE GRAJEDA TO RESIGN HER NEW JOB WITH OUR UNION, LEAVE HER POST TO
SOMEONE WITH MORE INTEGRITY AND GO GET A REAL JOB.
THAT HER PRESENCE IN OUR UNION CONSTITUTES A SLAP ON THE FACE OF ALL THOSE
HARDWORKING UNION MEMBERS WHO CONTINUE TO CLEAN UP AFTER HER AND PICK UP THE
PIECES FROM ALL THE SHAMBLES SHE AND HER FORMER BOYFRIEND HAVE LEFT OUR
ORGANIZATION WITH.
THAT ALL UNION MEMBERS UNITE TO BUILD A STRONGER UNION, STAMP OUT CORRUPT
UNION OFFICIALS FOR GOOD AND RESTORE THE PRIDE, RESPECT AND DIGNITY THAT
COMES WITH BEING A UNION MEMBER IN AMERICA.
— On *Thu, 3/12/09, SEIU721REFORMERS *wrote:
From: SEIU721REFORMERS
Subject: Fwd: L.A. TimesAnnelle Grajeda SEIU Local 721 official in
California quits th…
To:
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 3:40 AM
———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: L.A. TimesAnnelle Grajeda SEIU Local 721 official in California
quits th…
To: seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com
Regardless of what SEIU found or didn’t find with Miss Grajeda, it obvious
her relationship with her boyfriend and the SEIU has tarnished our image.
I feel she should step down and remove herself from the SEIU altogether.
Its a black eye for us members in good standing.
In a message dated 3/11/2009 8:38:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com writes:
Top SEIU official in California quits three posts
Annelle Grajeda resigns after a probe into whether she played a role in
payments to her ex-boyfriend. That inquiry found no wrongdoing. She will
take a different job with the union.
By Paul Pringle
10:30 PM PDT, March 10, 2009
The Service Employees International Union’s highest-ranking California
officer has resigned that position and two other leadership posts in the
wake of an internal investigation of payments to her ex-boyfriend, it was
announced today.
The SEIU said its inquiry found no wrongdoing by Annelle Grajeda, who was
one of six executive vice presidents of the national union as well as the
head of its California council and the local that represents Los Angeles
County workers.
– [image:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-union-sg,0,237951.storygallery
Union
boss under fire: A Times
Special…
– L.A. County fires former union chief for failing to return to
work
– Midwestern SEIU official
resigns
The union said Grajeda, who could not be reached for comment, had decided
to become an assistant to the SEIU’s secretary-treasurer in Washington, D.C.
Grajeda had been on leave since August, when the union began examining
whether she played a role in payments to Alejandro Stephens, a former
president of the Los Angeles local.
The SEIU has said Stephens violated a severance agreement by remaining on
the county payroll after he lost his union position. Two local members had
filed an internal complaint that suggested Grajeda used her influence to
help Stephens continue receiving a government paycheck, something she
denied.
One of the members, Ron Tanner, a retired county worker, said he was
disappointed that the union didn’t bar Grajeda from holding any future
office. “I don’t particularly care for this,” he said. “I’d rather see her
banned.”
SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the internal probe determined that
Grajeda “never stood to benefit” from any money Stephens received. She said
Grajeda opted to step down after “sitting and reflecting” on what she wanted
to do next.
“We’re absolutely supporting her decision,” Ringuette said.
She added that the union is still trying to recover severance payments from
Stephens, who could not be reached. The county fired him for allegedly
refusing to return to his job with the Department of Health Service after an
eight-month paid leave that had been arranged by Grajeda. The firing took
effect in December, and he appealed. The status of the appeal could not be
determined late Tuesday.
The 80,000-member Los Angeles local is one of several SEIU chapters that
have been hit by spending scandals.
Last year, the union ousted the president of its largest California local,
Tyrone Freeman, and demanded that he return more than $1 million it says he
misappropriated from the SEIU and at least one affiliated nonprofit.
The Times had reported that Freeman’s local and a second charity paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars to small companies owned by his relatives
and friends and spent a similar sum on golf tournaments, expensive
restaurants, a Beverly Hills cigar lounge and a Hollywood talent agency.
The SEIU removed Freeman’s former chief of staff from the presidency of the
union’s biggest Michigan local after determining that he received $33,500 in
improper payments from a housing nonprofit.
Freeman and others with ties to the SEIU are the subjects of a federal
criminal investigation. The House labor committee has also opened an
inquiry.
The union fired the officers of a Bay Area-based healthcare local after
accusing them of misusing funds to finance a battle against the SEIU’s
national leadership. The officers say they were retaliated against for
voicing dissent, and they have launched a rival union that seeks to replace
the SEIU at numerous hospitals and nursing homes.
paul.prin…@latimes.com
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com
Date: Mar 11, 2009 8:32 AM
Subject: Top SEIU official in California quits three posts
To: seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com
This story was sent to you by: SEIU LOCAL 721 REFORMERS
——————–
Top SEIU official in California quits three posts
——————–
Annelle Grajeda resigns after a probe into whether she played a role in
payments to her ex-boyfriend. That inquiry found no wrongdoing. She will
take a different job with the union.
By Paul Pringle
March 10 2009, 10:30 PM PDT
The Service Employees International Union’s highest-ranking California
officer has resigned that position and two other leadership posts in the
wake of an internal investigation of payments to her ex-boyfriend, it was
announced today.
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-seiu11-2009mar11,0,4841460.story
Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
–
SEIU Local 721 Reformers is an email address attempting to share information
with SEIU Local Members, Stewards, Officers, Staff and Officials.
ANY email that is sent to seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com will be forwarded
to every subscriber of this email address.
Rafael “Rafe” Garcia, City of Los Angeles Steward, 2007 Bargaining Team
Member and 2008 SEIU International Convention Delegate is the custodian of
this email address.
cityoflosangelesseiumembers.com
is another web site for more
information and interaction among SEIU Local
721 members who wish to make SEIU a membership driven Union.
We, you and all the rest of us have the best interests of the rank and file
members, over 80,000 strong.
* Group name: SEIULOCAL721REFORMERS
* Group home page:
http://groups.google.com/group/seiulocal721reformers
* Group email address: seiulocal721reformers@googlegroups.com
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Alan Peshek
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: A Farewell for a President
To: SEIU721REFORMERS
Thank you Gregg, the same happened to Legacy 347 staff. The ones that
are left with 721 lived in fear of being fired if they spoke up. Is that
anyway to run a “member driven” Union?
Alan
>>> SEIU721REFORMERS 3/29/2009 7:57
PM >>>
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gregg Fritchle
Date: Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: A Farewell for a President
To: seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com
Ruby, while I have great respect for you, I cannot concur with your
opinion
of Annelle. I can think of several staff who might well have done a
better
job, but they never got the chance because she fired all of them
summarily
the moment 721 came into existence. Most of them were mavericks who
weren’t
afraid to speak their minds – and who openly questioned whether Andy
Stern’s
current agenda was in the best interest of members. These were people
who
always put the members first.
Gregg Fritchle
Mar 29, 2009 04:05:22 PM, seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com wrote:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Date: Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: A Farewell for a President
To: seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com
I attended the farewell. I was surprised that more members was no
there. I
am not supporting Mark Ridley Thomas for not being there. However, we
gave
to his campaign because he was the best candidate and we needed
someone’s
support on that board.
As far as the fireball (Annelle), it was there. While Annelle and I
have had
very different opinions from time to time, I think she dida a wonderful
job
(overall) Which one of you would have done a better job. None. We are
so
busy trying to tear everything apart instead of working to improve what
we
have.
While I question most thing that happens, sometimes we have to have
the
solutions rather than just the questions. We have everybody trying to
tear
us down. Let’s stop sending so much negative stuff out. I am tired of
reading it. By no means am I saying don’t send the news worthy
information
or stop trying to make it better, but please stop whining about every
damn
thing.
R. Dye
—–Original Message—–
From: SEIU721REFORMERS
Sent: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 8:19 pm
Subject: Fwd: A Farewell for a President
———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Date: Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Subject: A Farewell for a President
To: seiulocal721reform…@gmail.com
THE FAREWELL FOR ANNELLE GRAJEDA
By George Zamalea
The auditorium’
s walls were stained with kick-off lights. Cabaret tall tables were
brought
in. They were covered with tablecloths and decorated with yellow
flowers.
All the chairs were cornered and there was a big screen showing
Annelle
Grajeda‘s face. Caught her up with that enigmatic smile that everyone
knew
quite well. In the background along the wall several tables were
covered
with fancy foods and a temporary bar angled to left and serving wines,
champagnes and beers by a SEIU Local 721’s staff. In front of the
room a
square with a dozen of chairs that they have prepared for the guests
but few
were seated on them. For entertainment they hired a pianist.
This was the farewell that the former President Annella Grajeda will
remember in her last moment of her last stay with SEIU Local 721 until
today. Even the most distinguishing house guests and state
representatives
of SEIU Local 721 would think twice to calling it a party or a
reception by
the effort of Patsy Howard. But it was a sad moment. A negative sense
that
was too common to talk or too shame or to make any sense that no one
would
be able to remember.
Almost all the presents were staff, except Michael D. Antonovich, the
Fifth
District boss, whose speech was the more colorful and vivid. I think
it
brought a positive thought in that evening and at the same time who
has
rewarded her with a placard. I’d think about Mark Ridley-Thom
as the one we fought for it and the one we gave him more than 1
million; but
you could not expect all at once, I may say.
Very little changes in the following speakers. Their speeches were
powerless. They were carrying no weight whosoever what they were trying
to
say, and I wonder if they would continue to subsidize them. But I know
to
the best of my knowledge weight both course of despair and internal
confuse
without a president on the platform of SEIU Local 721. Otherwise there
was a
risk that they would do nothing to hold on.
When Annelle Grajeda came up to speak. She illustrated the importance
of the
union and how power it was. She let us to understand about the hard
task
ahead. Then she spoke about her leadership over the years (24 years, I
guess), and she thanked all the staff about their efforts and their
business. She thanked the housing guests, too. Finally, she introduced
herself to a completely new line of power in the Service Employees
International Union somewhere in Washington, D.C. In the end, when
everyone
was moving around and talking and circling her or heading to exit, I
took my
opportunity to ask her how did she feel. She looked straightened at me
but
she did not register my face into her memory. I tried to tell her that
I was
one of the hundred thousands of SEIU Local 721 but I changed mind. What
for?
I stepped back and wondering.
I noticed her firebrand of a
leader I’ve known for the past seven years was not there. That speech
I have
heard in San Diego (California’s Dream) or Los Angeles Southwest
College
when we selected Ridley-Thomas for the Second District — was not
there. Her
speech with high-quality stuff seemed it has vanished. This one was
nonsense, dismay, painful, and bore. It was almost pity to listen to
her. It
meant that her fine craftwords that had come from that energetic
Annelle
Grajeda before was not there either. Her powerful figure seemed weak.
That
scenario, believed me, brothers and sisters, made me to cry.
PS: Invitation was for Staff Only. I made my entry invisible. And
please
don’t ask me why.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dan Mariscal
Date: Apr 1, 2009 4:30 AM
Subject: RE: A Farewell for a President
To: SEIU721REFORMERS
Jim, there’s still plenty being said about the consolidation at the
Governance Committee meetings and the Stewards’ Council meetings. The
members are seeing first-hand, the disadvantages, drawbacks and how the lack
of field representation is giving management the upper hand at the worksite.
I also have more respect for *you*, because of your participation on the
picket line. But you gotta admit, after the mass firings of 660 staff in
2007, there was a lot of quieting down of staff at 721. Stern is once again,
“cleaning house” as members of UUR are being “let go” after their resolution
to not interfere in the internal affairs of the local’s members. Doesn’t
that have an effect on staff here in our local?
—–Original Message—–
*From:* SEIU721REFORMERS [mailto:seiulocal721reform...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:44 AM
*Subject:* Fwd: A Farewell for a President
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jim Lauderdale
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: A Farewell for a President
To: SEIU721REFORMERS
I beg your pardon, but I wasn’t afraid to speak up then or now or when I
worked at 660 many years ago.
In fact I believe that we made quite a rukus about any number of issues
including the consolidation. So far no one has even so much as said boo
about it.
James Lauderdale
Civil Service Advocate
Does anybody know how much the party cost? Will they tell us or is this just one of the benefits of being an appointed leader so they can spend money with not having to account for it?
What ever came of the question of the cost of the Christmas party? Is the leadership just going to ignore that question also? It is just best to pay our dues & shut up, right?
Alan, Do you know or won’t they tell you either?
SEIU Denounces Mayor’s ‘Deadwood’ Slur, and Takes a Step Forward on Retirements vs. Layoffs
Today SEIU and the Coalition of LA City Union took a step closer to an early retirement plan to avoid layoffs.
SEIU 721 President Bob Schoonover also denounced the Mayor’s comment that some City workers are “deadwood.”
“The Mayor should think before he speaks,” said Schoonover. “The people who’ve chosen civil service as a career and dedicated 20, 30, 35 years of their lives to serving the citizens of Los Angeles should not be referred to as ‘deadwood.’ ”
SEIU and the Coalition pressed their plan for early retirements as an alternative to layoffs in a meeting today with the City. This week the Mayor endorsed SEIU and the Coalition’s plan to save hundreds of millions of dollars and avoid layoffs and wage cuts. “Early retirement is better than layoffs,” the Mayor told the Los Angeles Times. Click here to read the story. The next meeting over the plan is May 1.
SEIU and Coalition Take Stand for Step Increases and Seniority Rights
SEIU won confirmation from the City about the step increase due to top-level employees next year. “It’s in the budget,” Chief Administrative Analyst David Luther of the CAO’s Management Studies Group said in response to the SEIU’s request for clarification. Luther sent a City document showing the 2.75% step increase for SEIU and Coalition unions (see page 16). The City cannot alter the terms of those agreements.
Schoonover made a strong statement in support of seniority rights: “SEIU and the Coalition stopped the mayor’s attempts last year to change civil service rules to do away with seniority rights and impose mandatory furloughs. Seniority rights in the City of L.A. will remain in place.”
Last year the Civil Service Commission voted down the Mayor’s proposal to shred seniority protections and issue mandatory furloughs. In April, SEIU members packed a Civil Service hearing and sent a letter saying “the changes would undermine the City Charter” and “directly conflict with the five-year Letter of Agreement between the City and the Coalition of LA City Unions.”
Get the Facts About the LA City Budget
Read the LA Times story about the Mayor’s support for early retirement.
——————————————————————————–
This email was sent to:
dmariscal1@sbcglobal.net
To unsubscribe from the SEIU Local 721 Action Center, go to:
http://action.seiu721.org/unsubscribe
Ventura union agrees to pay cut to help city budget
By Kevin Clerici
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Capping weeks of negotiations, Ventura’s largest employees union agreed to a 3 percent pay cut and nearly two weeks of unpaid furlough to help close
the city’s budget shortfall, union officials announced today.
Members of Service Employees International Union Local 721 approved the reductions Monday night, totaling about $1.3 million, or 6 percent, in
savings over roughly 14 months, officials said. The use of unpaid leave time is flexible, officials said, to help minimize impact on city services and city
officials do not anticipate City Hall being open fewer hours.
Local 721 is the city’s largest employee union, representing about 370 employees of the city’s more than 600 workers.
Monday’s vote caps weeks of negotiations, and completes the city’s efforts to reduce payroll expenses by at least 5 percent and minimize layoffs. SEIU
was the final holdout among the city’s police and fire unions, executive and unrepresented employees in coming to terms. By agreeing to 6 percent
reductions, the union deal should preserve some jobs losses, union officials said.
Earlier this year, it was estimated upward of 30 people would have to be let go to close the city’s multimillion deficit.
Now it appears less than five people and perhaps even none will be removed, due to roughly a dozen early retirements, the elimination of vacant jobs, the
payroll cuts and millions in citywide service reductions, Human Resources Director Jenny Roney said today.
“Hopefully we won’t have to eliminate any people at the end,” she said.
Some employees whose jobs are to be eliminated have applied to fill current vacancies the City Council deemed worth saving in its effort to get city
spending in line with deeply reduced revenues of about $85 million.
The city likely will have 41 fewer budgeted positions in the fiscal year that begins July 1, she said.
The pay reductions will take effect in employees’ first paycheck in May, Roney said. The City Council is expected to approve the deals within the next
two weeks, she said.
“Everyone wanted to cooperate,” she said, praising employees willingness to reduce their compensation to preserve jobs. “It was just a matter of coming
to the terms that took some time. This brings relief. Now we can move forward.”
Dozens of department managers have agreed to take 5 percent pay cuts, and police and fire union employees will forfeit vacation pay or compensation
increases to meet the 5 percent savings.
© 2009 Ventura County Star
Coalition Remains United for Real Solutions *
Representatives of Coalition and other civilian City Unions learned today
that the City has withdrawn the early retirement proposal that would
have included five years service and/or age credit, reached between 2,000 and 3,000 workers, and allowed the City to chart a course for recovery. We have heard that a different program with a small cash payment will be proposed instead.
The Executive Employee Relations Committee (EERC), under the leadership of the Mayor, voted down the plan that was previously on the table, after months of talks – and just two weeks after the Mayor publicly
committed to supporting early retirement as an alternative to layoffs.
Union representatives expect to receive a new proposal next Friday, May
15. We will give it a full review. The Coalition will continue to stand
strong for a retirement plan that meaningfully addresses the magnitude of the challenge before us in a way that that mitigates the potential for
massive layoffs and preserves and the services that we provide. We will keep working through every available avenue to meet our goals.
While the abrupt withdrawal of proposals from the table is troubling,
we will not let it distract us from our goals: to protect critical City
services, preserve jobs, and improve the long-term financial stability
of Los Angeles.
The Coalition of LA City Unions issued a public statement this afternoon:
“After twelve months of working collaboratively on a plan to preserve
jobs, critical City services, and the long term financial solvency of the
nation’s second largest municipality, we were shocked today to learn from the news media that Mayor Villaraigosa had urged members of the City Council behind closed doors to reject the Early Retirement Incentive Program funded largely by City workers. We remain committed to the Mutual Gains process established by the Mayor and to working together to develop a long-term solution to the City’s financial crisis.”
“An effective retirement program is the single biggest thing the City
can do to get through these tough times without putting families on the
unemployment line.”
- Alice Goff, President of AFSCME Council 36 and Local 3090.
“Early retirements beat layoffs as a way out of this budget crisis.
They are better for City services, better for City workers, better for
local business, and better for people searching for jobs.”
– SEIU 721 President and Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic
Bob Schoonover