SEIU IN CALIFORNIA
Locals 1021, 521 and 221 and common interests and issues
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 26th, 2008 at 8:30 am12 and is filed under SEIU INTERNATIONAL.
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.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-workers27-2008dec27,0,3213703,full.story
SERVICE WORKERS EXPRESS OUTRAGE OVER ALLEGED MISUSE OF SEIU FUNDS
Three Activist Members of the SEIU Monitor Events as the Union Pledges to Enforce Broader Ethical Reforms.
By Paul Pringle
December 27, 2008
They make subsistence wages tending to the sick and elderly, minus the dues paid to the union local whose charismatic former president promised again and again to make the caregivers’ own lives better.
Now, the workers are told, the same fallen leader, Tyrone Freeman, owes the Service Employees International Union more than $1 million that officials say he misappropriated from the Los Angeles local to enrich his relatives and himself.
“I go back to those days when he was calling us brothers and sisters,” said Sergio Shokouh, 56. “He cheated us.”
With 160,000 members, not counting 30,000 in an affiliated organization, the United Long-Term Care Workers is the largest union local of any kind in California, and one of the biggest in the country.
At the same time, it is unusual because its members work mainly in private homes, and thus are scattered far and wide.
They do not share a factory floor or construction site, where they could consult with one another and keep an eye on their representatives. Their lack of money compounds their lack of clout.
Experts say all of this might have made their local ripe for exploitation.
“You have people in isolated workplaces who are interacting with the people they’re caring for more than with other workers,” said Eileen Boris, who chairs UC Santa Barbara’s feminist studies department and is writing a book on home-care workers. Moreover, she said, “it’s the poor caring for the poor.”
Since The Times began reporting on Freeman’s spending in August, the paper has received a steady stream of email and telephone calls from people who identified themselves as members of the local, making $9 an hour or so.
Most expressed shock at the revelations that Freeman channeled millions from the local and a related charity to his wife’s and mother-in-law’s business accounts; spent members’ dues on fancy restaurants and resorts; and allegedly used union funds to pay hotel and other bills during his wedding in Hawaii.
Nearly all the members vented feelings of outrage and betrayal.
Torrance resident Shokouh is one of three who sat down recently to discuss their anger and to demand justice, beginning with the return of the money Freeman is accused of draining from the union’s coffers.
In many ways, the three workers are typical of the local’s membership. Two are immigrants, and one is African-American. Two have cared for family members confined to their homes, a common arrangement.
All scrape by with second and third jobs. What sets them apart is that they have been vocal in their demands for reform in the union, and are among the few who attended SEIU hearings on Freeman, who has denied any wrongdoing.
“A lot of people don’t know what’s going on,” said Stephen Sherman, 88, of Van Nuys, who has been caring for his daughter. He said most members, especially those who can find only part-time work, are too strapped to travel across town to participate in union proceedings.
“How can anybody attend anything when they make $50 a week?” Sherman added.
Auri Bustamante, who was sitting beside him, nodded.
“Freeman takes a lot of our money, and we don’t even have medical insurance,” said Bustamante, 55, a Los Angeles area resident who is being treated for lymphoma. “We have to get to the bottom of it and find our where all our money went. We have to get it back.”
The SEIU has insisted on restitution as part of an order last month banning Freeman from the organization forever. The organization removed him from office after the Times reports, which prompted an ongoing federal criminal investigation and a congressional inquiry, among other probes.
SEIU President Andy Stern said the expulsion of the man he once mentored showed that the union was serious about protecting the interests of workers who “do some of the toughest jobs anywhere.”
Shokouh, Sherman and Bustamante said Stern got the last part right but they were taking a wait-and-see attitude about a pledge the union made to enforce broader ethical reforms.
They noted that Stern appointed Freeman to the local leadership post, as he did two other prominent SEIU officers who have come under scrutiny.
Rickman Jackson, Freeman’s former chief of staff, has been ousted as president of the union’s biggest Michigan local for taking improper payments from a housing nonprofit. Annelle Grajeda, an SEIU executive vice president who also heads its state council and a second L.A. chapter, has stepped aside pending a union investigation of payments to her ex-boyfriend.
“We need new people,” said Bustamante.
Even with the lymphoma, she has been taking care of an ailing woman. “When she’s very sick and I have to give her a shower, it’s hard on my body,” said Bustamante, who is from Guatemala. “I had my last chemotherapy last week.”
Shokouh, an Iranian immigrant who cared for his 91-year-old mother until her death earlier this year, said he had once confronted Freeman about the need for improved health insurance and other benefits for many union members.
“He said, ‘We will work hard for you.’ He convinced me that union money is spent wisely,” Shokouh recounted, shaking his head.
Sherman said he encountered Freeman outside a hearing that led SEIU officials to place his local in trusteeship. “I said, ‘You messed up and you have to come clean.’ He said, ‘That’s your version of it. You don’t know the bottom line.’ ”
Folding his hands resolutely, Sherman added that Freeman had nothing more to say. “I know what he did to us,” he said. “He ruined our union.”
SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said that the trustee now running the local, John Ronches, is doing “heroic” work to right Freeman’s wrongs.
paul.pringle@latimes.com
MORE union raiding? Organizing the Organized? Why?
http://allnurses.com/forums/f323/seiu-raid-cna-nnoc-nurses-chicago-327259.html
SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
Organizing the organized?
A worker at Chicago’s Stroger Hospital looks at the latest SEIU raid on the rival CNA union.
http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/2…-the-organized
August 20, 2008
THERE’S A union drive going on at the Cook County Bureau of Health that aims to get registered nurses to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Ordinarily, a union organizing drive would be cause for celebration. The problem with the SEIU union drive is that the nearly 1,800 nurses who work for Cook County are already represented by the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC), which was founded by the California Nurses Association (CNA) in 2004.
Instead of focusing on the more than 1.9 million unorganized nurses in the U.S., SEIU has decided to organize a vote to decertify the NNOC, with the hope that SEIU would then be selected to represent nurses at Cook County. SEIU has poured significant resources into the campaign, sending SEIU RNs from other states to tour John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital–Chicago’s main hospital that serves the poor. Recently, a free lunch was offered in an adjacent building so that nurses could talk one-on-one with the dozen or so staffers there.
The question is, why is SEIU raiding a workplace already organized by the CNA/NNOC, when only 23 percent of the 2.5 million nurses in this country belong to a union?…
Last edited by NRSKarenRN : Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason: edited per TOS copyright
The following members say Thank You: advocateforsafety Chico David RN K98 lindarn RN1989 RN4MERCY
#2 Old Aug 20, 2008, 12:14 PM
advocateforsafety – Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Re: SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
I agree that the biggest loser in this issue is the ununionized nurses. I have ask both the CNA and SEIU to stop their fight against each other and turn their attention to giving a voice back to the worker. For many nurses in non union facilities this infighting has worked to the advantage of the administartions. It feeds the myth that all unions are out to build their membership for the sake of making money from dues. It needs to stop and the SEIU needs to back off but with that said the CNA and NNOC spends alot of time and money not just defending itself but attacking the SEIU and like I said and you stated this hurts us all.
For the sake of the worker we need to find a way to get along.
The following member says Thank You: RN1989
#3 Old Aug 21, 2008, 10:52 AM
NRSKarenRN’s Avatar
NRSKarenRN – Co-Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Re: SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
CNA raided Cook County RN’s in 2005 from INA due to poor contract in 2003 and not representing nurses with unit based issues.
RN’s need to remember THEY are the union and need to be involved to solve own problems/issues.
Jul 4, 2005: Modern Healthcare: Laboring for union nurses -
Raids on members causing high fever in nurse unions – Archives …
The following members say Thank You: lindarn RN1989
#4 Old Aug 21, 2008, 11:10 AM
RN1989
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Re: SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
What I thought was funny was the examples in the article about why nurses need unions – 30 min unpaid lunch for a 12 hr shift, $300/mo insurance, using 24 hr vacation time before you can use sick time.
That sounds like nearly every hospital I’ve worked in. Particularly the TX hospitals. If they think that those examples are bad, they need to come on down to TX and see just how much worse things can really get!
The following member says Thank You: lindarn
#5
Old Aug 21, 2008, 11:21 AM
NRSKarenRN’s Avatar
NRSKarenRN – Co-Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Re: SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
Originally Posted by RN1989 View Post
What I thought was funny was the examples in the article about why nurses need unions – 30 min unpaid lunch for a 12 hr shift, $300/mo insurance, using 24 hr vacation time before you can use sick time.
That sounds like nearly every hospital I’ve worked in. Particularly the TX hospitals. If they think that those examples are bad, they need to come on down to TX and see just how much worse things can really get!
Thanks why NNOC (CNA National arm) already there with one victory.
The following members say Thank You: lindarn RN4MERCY
#6
Old Aug 21, 2008, 02:23 PM
RN4MERCY
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Lightbulb Re: SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
Originally Posted by NRSKarenRN View Post
CNA raided Cook County RN’s in 2005 from INA due to poor contract in 2003 and not representing nurses with unit based issues.
RN’s need to remember THEY are the union and need to be involved to solve own problems/issues.
A good point regarding direct care nurses recognizing that “THEY” are the union. However, I believe the Cook County/Chicago RNs’ organizing committee demonstrated that they are involved; they collectively and effectively recognized that their interests would be better served if they exercised their “freedom of association” rights. They demonstrated problem solving at it’s finest, and recognized that reforming INA from the inside was all but impossible. To paraphrase the old ’serentity prayer’, they had the COURAGE to organize and change what could be changed, AND the WISDOM to know the difference among unions.
I respectfully must disagree with the use of the term “raiding” with regard to nurses who work at Cook County. The definition of “raiding” is generally accepted to be: “a sudden, forceful attack, a predatory operation mounted against a competitor, especially an attempt to lure away the personnel or membership of a competing organization”, according to my dictionary. The Stroger/Cook County nurses invited and chose to organize with NNOC because THEIR interests were not being served by INA. The NNOC does NOT compete with INA to serve the interests of the hospital association! Let me restate that for emphasis: CNA/NNOC DOES NOT COMPETE FOR RNs WHO ARE ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVING THE HOSPITAL AND INSURANCE INDUSTRY. (As a matter of fact, in California, we kicked ‘em out with a democratic vote in 1995, and took over our organization.) http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/about-nnoc.html
RNs choose to affiliate because CNA/NNOC is a professional all-RN organization and a labor union, that represents the exclusive interests of RNs and patients. CNA/NNOC is unparalled and has no equal among labor unions in promoting, protecting, and defending the right and the duty of RNs to advocate for patients.
Cook County RNs recognized INA was ineffectual and often working in collusion with the hospital industry to subordinate the interests of RNs to the industry’s bottom-line financial schemes. INA functions much like a labor/management “partnership” union with employers, not unlike the SEIU, with a top-down, autocratic “leadership” structure, where the voice of the direct care RN is marginalized and ignored.
Shamefully, time and time again, INA and IHA representatives sat smugly and cozily together, alternatively ranting and whining during hearings in opposition to HB 392, the mandatory safe RN to patient ratio legislation, sponsored by State Representative Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), chair of the Health Care Availability and Access Committee. NNOC members from all over Illinois, including busloads from Cook County provided fact-based, credible, and often heart-breaking testimony in support of why this important public safety/patient advocacy legislation is necessary!
Such subservience to industry by INA creats a hostile working environment that becomes a barrier to RNs’ ability to provide safe, therapeutic, and effective care to patients, and a barrier to the recruitment and retention of sufficient RNs to meet the needs of the patients.
Speaking truth to the powerful monied, self-serving interests will always be a fight, a good fight that direct care RNs are always willing to collectively and strategically engage in, on behalf of their patients. As CNA/NNOC members, WE PLEDGE OUR SOLIDARITY TO SUPPORT RNs IN COLLECTIVE PATIENT ADVOCACY:
To speak and act on behalf of our patients.
To unite against actions by a health care facility, government agency or private interest group that infringe upon our obligations as RNs.
To unite against actions that interfere with RNs’ right to form their own organization, take action in their own name and improve conditions for all nurses.
The following members say Thank You: herring_RN Ludlow mdfog10 RN Power Ohio
#7
Old Aug 21, 2008, 04:31 PM
Ludlow – Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Re: SEIU raid on CNA NNOC nurses in Chicago
RNs want to do what is best for their patients. CNA/NNOC helps give you support and ‘has your back’ so that you can turn the tide when the corporation or the government wants to put profits or power above patient care, safety and patient interests.
Hooray for CNA and NNOC!
Any group of nurses that wants to invite that kind of power and organization of forces into their work place is not being raided; they are being wise.
The following members say Thank You: Chico David RN herring_RN mdfog10 RN Power Ohio RN4MERCY
New York Daily News
By Juan Gonzalez
SEIU President Andy Stern is a threat to labor soul
Tuesday, December 30th 2008
Andy Stern head of the nation’s fastest-growing union and a chief proponent of
labor reform, is about to reveal himself as a colossal scam artist.
Stern, president of the 2 million-member Service Employees International Union
plans to kick off the new year with a stunning assault on democracy within his
union.
At a meeting of SEIU’s executive board next week, he is expected to dismantle
one of its largest locals, California’s 150,000-member United Healthcare
Workers West, by merging all or part of it into a new California affiliate,
union sources say.
By doing so, Stern plans to remove UHW’s highly regarded president, Sal
Rosselli, the most persistent and effective advocate of rank-and-file democracy
within SEIU.
Stern is rushing to do away with the UHW and Rosselli despite overwhelming
opposition from the local’s members, who flooded SEIU headquarters the past few
weeks with more than 125,000 letters and petitions opposing the merger.
Even Stern’s supporters fear his take-no-prisoners strategy is about to spark
brutal strife within organized labor, as other unions and labor-friendly
politicians are forced to choose sides. Stern is pressing forward despite
several scandals that forced the resignations of a number of top SEIU leaders
after reports of financial improprieties.
“Andy did nothing about all the crooks in the union,” an ex-SEIU president in
California said Tuesday. “But he’s going after Sal Rosselli, the one guy we all
know is totally honest.”
Take Tyrone Freeman. Stern plucked him out of a small Georgia local in 1999 and
put him in charge of Local 6434 – a huge home care workers unit in Southern
California.
Freeman resigned after the L.A. Times revealed he had funneled $600,000 in
union contracts to his wife. The local also paid his mother-in-law $8,000 a
month to baby-sit his child and those of other union staff, and shelled out
$8,000 for his Hawaiian wedding.
Then there’s Rickman Jackson, a former Freeman aide whom Stern put in charge of
all SEIU health care workers in Michigan, Jackson was booted and banned from
holding office for three years after it was learned he was drawing a second
salary from Freeman’s California local. He also secretly pocketed $2,500 in
monthly rent payments from a union-created housing group. SEIU then gave him a
job with a union local in Canada.
Stern also installed Annelle Grajeda, as president of Local 721, an L.A-based
public employee local.
Grajeda, who became the top SEIU official in California, went on sudden leave
of absence following news reports that her ex-boyfriend collected multiple
salaries and consultant fees from SEIU while also drawing a salary as a county
employee.
In each case, Stern installed these officials after several locals were merged
and locally elected officials were cast aside.
Stern’s supporters praise him as a visionary. They say he’s brilliant at
devising new strategies to recruit thousands of new members, and at merging
weak locals into bigger and more effective organizations.
His critics say he’s merely perfected a new form of business unionism:
corporate-style takeovers, false advertising, and secret deals with politicians
- all of it aimed at a mad scramble for more members.
SEIU officials did not respond Tuesday to several calls for comment.
“Our international union keeps reaching special agreements with our employers
that the workers don’t know anything about,” Rosselli said.
This is a fight for the soul of organized labor, Rosselli added.
“It’s between our vision of a bottom-up union movement and Andy Stern’s idea
that a few folks in Washington should control all the decisions.”
jgonzalez@nydailynews.com
———————————————–
A year of triumphs and scandals for SEIU
Union members and President Andy Stern helped put Obama in the White House. But
a former top California leader is under federal investigation and a Bay Area
local is feuding with the top brass.
LA Times
By Paul Pringle
December 31, 2008
The year might have ended on a purely triumphant note for Andy Stern, who heads
the nation’s fastest-growing labor union and played a key supporting role in
President-elect Barack Obama’s drive for the White House.
Instead, Stern has seen the Service Employees International Union jarred by a
spending scandal and internecine feuding, and more recently by the
favor-selling investigation that led to the arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod
Blagojevich.
Stern has not been implicated in any wrongdoing, and many say he has moved
forcefully to address the allegations of corruption in the union’s biggest
California chapter and internal complaints of financial impropriety at a second
Los Angeles local.
While federal prosecutors allege that Blagojevich sought a plum job through the
SEIU in exchange for filling Obama’s U.S. Senate seat with a labor ally,
authorities have not accused union officials of participating in such a scheme.
The union is cooperating with the investigation of Blagojevich.
But Stern’s critics point out that a trio of SEIU officers who have faced
varying degrees of scrutiny were his appointees. Some say that his
administration ignored early reports of trouble with one or more of them,
particularly Tyrone Freeman, the sacked president of the largest California
local. Freeman is the target of a federal criminal probe that confidential
sources say probably will stretch well into 2009.
An SEIU inquiry already has concluded that Freeman misappropriated more than $1
million in union funds for himself and his relatives, an allegation he has
denied.
Several current and former SEIU staffers said they had gone to Stern’s
lieutenants with concerns about Freeman’s spending on cars and restaurants as
far back as 2001, although the complaints did not include allegations of any
illegalities. Most of those people asked not to be named because they feared
jeopardizing their futures in the labor movement.
They said they also had raised questions about Freeman’s relationship with a
union worker with whom he had a child and whom he eventually married. Nothing
was done, they said.
Sal Rosselli, the president of an SEIU local in the Bay Area, said he was among
those who complained. He is now locked in a feud with Stern.
“There were lots of discussions about problems with Tyrone — the way money was
being spent, Ford Explorers for all the staff, second cars for some people,”
Rosselli said.
Stern, 58, and SEIU’s president since 1996, declined to be interviewed.
Spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said Stern had no prior knowledge of Freeman’s
alleged misdeeds.
“Until we read these allegations in the L.A. Times, nobody ever brought before
us serious credible evidence of wrongdoing,” she said.
Meanwhile, Ringuette said, all of Stern’s actions have been aimed at promoting
the welfare of the union’s membership, which includes social workers, janitors,
healthcare providers and security guards.
But some fault Stern for setting a poor example. The SEIU’s national office has
paid millions of dollars to companies, nonprofits and individuals with family
ties and other personal connections to the union’s leaders. One firm partly
owned by an SEIU director received more than $1 million in consulting fees. The
union says all the payments were proper.
Others say Stern’s push to centralize control over the 2-million-member union
created conditions for abuses. They say his consolidation of locals into bigger
and bigger chapters has reduced SEIU democracy, and thus limited the ability of
rank-and-file members to monitor and challenge officers they suspect of
unethical conduct.
“When your union is less democratic than the Teamsters, you have to look in the
mirror and say, ‘What happened?’ ” said Ken Paff, national organizer for
Teamsters for a Democratic Union, a reform group.
Paff said the “mega-locals” formed under Stern’s administration have made it
nearly impossible for dissidents to collect enough money or candidacy
signatures to run against incumbents in union elections. He said the U.S. Labor
Department has accused Freeman’s local of making it so difficult for
non-incumbents to gather signatures that its last election was a sham.
Ringuette rejected Paff’s criticism. She said the consolidations have been
approved by the membership’s elected delegates.
The SEIU spent millions of dollars on Obama’s behalf, and fielded legions of
get-out-the-vote troops in pivotal states. After the election, speculation
swirled that Stern would become Obama’s labor secretary — the nomination went
to Rep. Hilda Solis, a Los Angeles Democrat — or be offered another post in
the administration.
Stern has no interest in joining the Obama team, Ringuette said.
But the SEIU has been clear that it expects its agenda to advance under the new
president. Among its top priorities is the proposed Employee Free Choice Act,
which would allow workers to unionize by signing petition cards. Business
interests are lobbying hard to defeat the measure, because it permits unions to
avoid secret-ballot elections if a majority of workers sign up. Union activists
say employers routinely undermine such elections by coercing workers against
voting for representation.
The scandal in Stern’s ranks has given ammunition to opponents of the bill, and
to those wary of moves to roll back financial disclosure requirements for
unions. Labor leaders contend that the Bush administration has toughened the
rules to harass their organizations.
After The Times’ reports on Freeman’s financial dealings, which included lavish
expenditures on golf tournaments, restaurants and a Beverly Hills cigar lounge,
the SEIU stripped him of his office and later banned him for life. The
president of its biggest Michigan chapter also has been removed, and the head
of its California council has gone on leave pending a union investigation.
Stern’s travails began with an uprising by the Oakland-based local, United
Healthcare Workers-West, as Rosselli resisted a plan to shift thousands of its
members to Freeman’s chapter.
Rosselli and his supporters assert that Stern has wielded mergers to oust
elected local officers, and is boosting membership by accepting sweetheart
contracts with employers that agree to recognize the SEIU as a bargaining
agent.
Stern has denied the accusations, and the SEIU has brought internal charges
against Rosselli and other officers of his local, alleging that they
misappropriated money — not true, they say — to fund their political
ambitions within the union. The SEIU also has proposed another merger that
would dilute Rosselli’s local.
“It’s outrageous that they’re doing this campaign of retaliation against us,”
Rosselli said. “We’re the fastest-growing union within SEIU. We’re the most
politically active. We’ve been the model union within SEIU.”
Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at UC Santa Barbara, has lauded Stern’s
accomplishments over the years, but sympathizes with Rosselli. He said Stern’s
consolidation program “lends itself to a more autocratic leadership style.”
Peter Dreier, an Occidental College politics professor and labor expert, said
Stern should not be judged too harshly in light of the “rotten apples” in the
union.
“It’s an organization with human beings in it, some of whom are selfish and
corrupt,” Dreier said. “This is a time for the labor movement to celebrate its
victories, and nobody deserves to celebrate more than Andy Stern. He helped
elect the president of the United States.”
paul.pringle@latimes.com
———————————————
From the Los Angeles Times
SEIU president’s appointees
Stern’s appointees
Three appointees of SEIU President Andy Stern are under investigation.
Tyrone Freeman
Once a rising star in the labor movement, now banned for life by SEIU for
allegedly engaging in a broad corruption scheme as head of its largest
California local, he has been ordered to repay more than $1 million. He is the
subject of a federal criminal investigation and a Congressional inquiry. He has
denied wrongdoing.
Rickman Jackson
Former chief of staff to Freeman, he was removed as president of SEIU’s biggest
Michigan local. He is accused of improperly taking $33,500 in payments from a
housing nonprofit sponsored by Freeman’s local. SEIU says Jackson is returning
the money.
Annelle Grajeda
The SEIU executive vice president, the union’s highest-ranking official in
California and head of a local in Los Angeles, is on leave. She stepped aside
in SEIU investigation of payments to her ex-boyfriend, Alejandro Stephens,
former president of an earlier incarnation of Grajeda’s local. She has denied
wrongdoing.
The Investigations
U.S. Labor Department, FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office are investigating
Freeman and his local, and his dealings with two affiliated charities, sources
say. The House labor committee also is investigating. The city of Compton has
probed whether it was defrauded when it donated parcels to the union-sponsored
housing charity.
Freeman required workers of a second charity to work on political campaigns —
despite laws barring such activities — then denied it to the Internal Revenue
Service during a 2006 investigation, sources say. The IRS declined to say
whether it has reopened the probe.
Source: U.S. Labor Department, IRS records, Times reporting
From: Steve Zeltzer
To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
Subject: SEIU 521 Santa Clara County Workers Independent Slate Wins Most Positions In Repudiation of Stern’s Appointee Kristy Sermershiem
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:34:46 -0800
SEIU 521 Santa Clara County Workers Independent Slate Wins Most Positions In Repudiation of Stern’s Appointee Kristy Sermershiem
by Steve Zeltzer
12/30/2008
lvpsf@igc.org
In a stunning rejection of SEIU president Andy Stern’s appointed operative Kristy Sermershiem, president of SEIU 521, the 11,000 Santa Clara County public workers unit have elected independent candidates who are supporting a democratic and accountable union. Many of the SEIU 521 members are angry that Sermershiem has refused to allow a more democratic process in the local and has supported the SEIU Stern’s plan for call centers in which business agents and stewards are replaced with members being forced to find out about their contract issues and grievances through a call center. Many members are also angry that the forced merger created a chaotic situation within many units in the large 40,000 member local.
Sermershiem also during the campaign personally attacked and verbally assaulted members in Monterey for challenging her methods of operation. This election upset now means that the the Stern supporters throughout the state are coming under greater threat. Stern’s appointed president Annelle Grajeda, chair of its California state council and president of Los Angeles based SEIU 721 and Tyrone Freeman the Stern appointed head of the Homecare local have been removed by the SEIU International after evidence of corruption and double dipping surfaced in the stories in the Los Angeles Times. These people were appointed directly by SEIU president Andy Stern yet he continues to argue that he was unaware of any malfeasance by his own appointees.
This recent election is a sign of the growing anger of California SEIU rank and file members that is becoming a great danger to the Stern and his national apparatus. Their apparent effort to continue the dismantlement of the 150,000 member United Healthcare West and the unilateral removal of it’s president Sal Rosselli is creating even an angrier backlash among SEIU activists in other locals in California. Many of the candidates who were victorious in the SEIU 521 election were vocal in their opposition to the SEIU International’s effort to dismantle SEIU UHW as well as the massive merger pushed through in their own local.
Many members are also concerned that Sermersheim and the SEIU statewide has no plans to mobilize against the threatened massive budget cuts facing the membership. Despite a the largest union membership in California, the SEIU has relied on deals with the Democrats to defend their members and this strategy is now in shambles as the California budget crisis is being used by right wing forces to whipsaw public workers throughout California. This is now combined with the increasing internal dissension and anger created by autocratic tactics of the SEIU Stern administration including siding with Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger in support of a insurance company controlled healthcare plan. He personally met with the governor and attended a PR function for the governor at the same time that California SEIU locals were locked in a battle against his attack on public workers.
The growing danger to Stern and his supporters in the International is that their efforts to eliminate opposition in California could end up with them losing the majority of the 700,000 members in California. This would mean a major catharsis for Stern’s national and international agenda. His loss in a raid on the FMPR Puerto Rican teachers after spending over $20 million and the growing and deepening opposition throughout the country now threatens his power base even more. The corruption crisis not only in California but in Michigan and in Chicago where one of his Vice Presidents Balanoff was involved in discussions with the governor about a payoff of the chair of “Change To Win” in return for getting a union supported Senator have brought the SEIU into national disrepute and is becoming an increasing scandal within the US labor movement.
The results in the heart of Silicon Valley are likely another nail in the coffin of Stern’s plan to centralize and further corporatize the SEIU under his personal control.
http://www.seiu521.com/assets/assetcontent/252a5258-a599-4803-9c22-dd5c796f4333/546bfa9e-94e2-495f-9d30-54cc81f55e47/b8b8f7ab-fc8a-4834-9475-fb1433664c32/1/SCCO-ChairResults.pdf
SCCO ELECTION RESULTS CHAIR PERSON, DEPUTY CHAIR PERSON VICE CHAIR PERSON 12/30/2008
CHAIRPERSON – One Seat % of votes Status
Vincent Reyna 50.31% Winner
Brian O’Neill 49.69%
DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON – Two Seats Status
Robert Castillo Winner
Wren Bradley Winner
Elsa Venegas
Rachel Grocha Welch
Rosa Ramirez
Alfred Issaco
Guadalupe E. Sandoval Jr.
Ralph Hays
Peter Yoon
Vice Chairpeson Clerical – One Seat Status
Muriel Frederick Winner
Edward Morillo
Anna Griffin
Jocelyn Evette Champlin
Henry Garza
Vice Chairperson APT – One Seat Status
Aida Tavarez Winner
Lawrence Arias
Vice Chairperson Blue Collar – One Seat Status
Page 1
SCCO ELECTION RESULTS CHAIR PERSON, DEPUTY CHAIR PERSON VICE CHAIR PERSON 12/30/2008
Emma Davis Winner
Greg Gimenez
Steve McClendon
Vice Chairperson Social Workers – One Seat Status
Dan Weidman Winner
Zoraida H. Gomez
Robert Brizuela
Vice Chairperson Eligibility Worker – One Seat Status
Ruben Garcia (Not Contested) Winner
Vice Chairperson Enviromental Health – One Seat Status
Peder Eriksson (Not Contested) Winner
Vice Chairperson Eligibilty Worker & Social
Worker Supervisory
Status
Sharon (Sunny) Burgan (Not Contested) Winner
Delina Morris (Not Contested) Winner
Vice Chairperson Public Health Nurse – No
Candidates
PR:SEIU 521 CTW\CLC
Page 2
Service Union Leaders Consider Consolidation
George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The executive board of the Service Employees International Union will take up a proposal Thursday to consolidate in a single local all long-term-care workers in California, despite the vehement protests of critics who say the change will weaken labor’s hand.
On its face, the concept of consolidation appears straightforward, but there are deep philosophical differences between the parent union and the Oakland-based SEIU local, which would be stripped of its long-term-care workers.
The idea is to move the 65,000 long-term-care workers of the 150,000 members of United Healthcare Workers-West in Oakland, San Jose’s Local 521 and Los Angeles-based Local 6463 into a single group.
Proponents say the concretion of wealth and globalizing corporate ownership requires unions to organize on a scale to compete with employers. Opponents, and in particular Sal Rosselli, the president of United Healthcare Workers-West, lambaste the international union president, Andy Stern, for what Rosselli says is a top-down management style that does not engage workers. He said Stern’s practice is to negotiate contracts with weakened worker provisions in exchange for employers’ willingness not to stand in the way of union organizing efforts.
“We have found international officers’ unchecked power was causing deals with employers without involving workers or local union leaders that adversely affected our workers,” said Rosselli. “SEIU has evolved into a dictatorship in which Andy Stern and others have consolidated power and decision-making authority and resources among a few. It’s top-down versus our bottom-up. So we are coming from opposite points of view.”
For its part, the SEIU has accused Rosselli and other leaders of United Healthcare Workers-West of “financial malpractice,” allegedly diverting $3 million in dues for the personal and political benefit of the leadership. A seven-day administrative hearing looking into the matter was held this summer, conducted by former Labor Secretary Ray Marshall. His decision whether the Oakland local should be taken over in a trusteeship is pending.
Rosselli says the charge is bogus.
The consolidation matter is proceeding on a separate track.
In a telephone conference call on Thursday, the 60 members of the SEIU executive board will consider the advisory vote taken recently by a fraction of eligible union members who are potentially affected.
Some 309,000 ballots were sent to California long-term health care workers in the SEIU, asking in part if they favored a single local. Only 26,000 ballots were returned, and 4,000 of those were challenged. Some 125,000 members sent in protests about the vote.
Still, the result, with a small number of votes, was 86.2 percent in favor of a long-term care local and 13.8 percent opposed.
Proponents of consolidation said that constitutes an endorsement.
On that day, Stern appeared to be forecasting what he and board members are expected to do on Thursday, when he said, “Our members sent a clear message today. A single statewide local can instantly transform long-term-care workers into one of the leading political and economic forces in the Golden State.”
He said that with the state budget crisis and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calling for devastating cuts in worker pay and patient care, “Our members are saying now is the time to pool our strength.”
Rosselli has not been invited to make a presentation to the executive board. He was a member of the board from 1996 until June, when the SEIU held its convention in Puerto Rico. Stern did not include Rosselli on his slate of candidates for the board, so his membership came to an end.
If a single local is created, Rosselli and other local leadership will be ousted and Stern will select a president. Michelle Ringuette, a spokeswoman for the SEIU, said Rosselli would not be picked “for obvious reasons.”
“We need clarity and resolution of the financial malpractice we discovered at the local,” she said.
Rosselli said he expected Marshall, who conducted the hearing into the matter, to recommend the local be taken over in trusteeship, because that has been the result in every similar case. He said that the process was merely an effort to muzzle dissent and that his lawyers will get a reversal in federal court.
E-mail George Raine at graine@sfchronicle.com
Charges Filed Against Locals 221 and 99:
January 3, 2009
Anna Burger
Secretary- Treasurer
SEIU
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Sister Burger:
We are writing you to file charges against SEIU Local 221 and SEIU Local 99 per the terms of
the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws, Article XVII, Section 3.
On October 3,2008, we filed an election protest and charges against the Executive Board of
Local 221 and against the members of the election committee. The three charging parties,
Stewards McGlown, Kroopkin and Rochfort, were all elected in the protested election of
October 1 – 4, 2008. The October 3, 2008 protest and charges are attached and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
On November 14, 2008, we received a letter from Local 221 Secretary Omar Lopez along with a
copy of a letter from him to SEIU Local 99 Executive Director Bill Lloyd, also dated November
14, 2008. Both letters are attached and are incorporated by reference.
According to Secretary Lopez, “Given that these charges are against this Local’s Executive
Board, it cannot act or appoint a trial body to accept or deny these charges. Bill A.-Lloyd,
Executive Director for SEIU Local 99, will take on the responsibility.”
Between November 21,2008 and December 15,2008, six emailletters were exchanged between
the charging parties and Brother Lloyd, about the November 14th letters from Secretary Lopez.
The texts of these emails are attached and are incorporated by reference.
We concur with Secretary Lopez that the Local 221 Executive Board cannot appoint a trial body.
We disagree with the contention that the Board cannot act, in the limited but crucial sense that
the proper action would have been for the Board to either (a) request that SEIU President Andy
Stem assume original jurisdiction, per Article XVII, Section 2(f) or (b) to refer the charges to
SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger and the International Executive Board, per Article XVII,
Section 3.
CharJ!e 1:
By copy of our letter today, we hereby re-file our election protest and charges of October 3,
2008, as charges against Local 221, and ask the International Executive Board to conduct a
hearing.
1
January 3, 2009 – charges page 2 of 4
Charge 2:
We charge SEIU Local 221 with violation of Article XVII, Section 2(1), and ask the
International Executive Board to conduct a hearing. Local 221 had no right to involve
Brother Lloyd in the case. Local 221 failed to either request that President Stem take original
jurisdiction or request that the International Executive Board take jurisdiction. The Local 221
Executive Board, including the Local 221 President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer,
instead sought to invent expedient rules of its own, and thereby deny the charging parties due
process and a fair hearing.
Charge 3:
We charge SEIU Local 99 with violation of Article XVII, Section 2(1), and ask the
International Executive Board to conduct a hearing. Local 99 should not have permitted its
Executive Director to interfere with the internal affairs of Local 221. Brother Lloyd has stated his
intention to “make my decision in January, 2009″ and has refused to show any legal basis for his
involvement.
Charge 4:
In an earlier incident, also involving internal union charges and trials, on August 27, 2008, SEIU
Local 221’s Trial Board conducted a grossly improper and unfair hearing, on charges brought·
against Steward Wally Gutierrez. The charges were made by a member of the Local 221
Executive Board, with the apparent agreement of the entire Board and senior staff of Local 221,
with malicious intent and as retaliation. A letter from Steward Monty Kroopkin to the
International Executive Board about this trial is attached and is incorporated by reference.
Brother Gutierrez was not even allowed to present all of his witnesses. The membership was not
even allowed to witness the trial. SEIU Local 221 Secretary Omar Lopez and SEIU Local 221
Deputy Director of Government and Community Relations Mathew Kostrinsky, stood at the
entrance to the Local 221 union hall and told dozens of members of Local 221 that we were not
allowed to enter own our hall, not even to use the lavatory. For over three hours, while the trial
proceeded inside one of the rooms in the union hall, members were not allowed inside the hall,
let alone allowed inside the trial room to witness the trial. The video record and transcript of the
Gutierrez trial are available from SEIU Local 221, and we request that the International
Executive Board take official administrative/judicial notice of the trial record, and we
incorporate it by reference.
In yet another incident, also involving unethical denial of member rights of participation, on
October 30, 2008, at a meeting of the Local 221 Bylaws Committee which was attended by the
four officers of Local 221, SEIU Local 221 Director of Bargaining and Training Lois Balfour
informed Stewards Monty Kroopkin and Charlene Wilson that meetings of the Local Union’s
Bylaws Committee were “closed” and members of the Local Union were not allowed to attend.
Director Balfour ordered them to leave the meeting room at the union hall. The Bylaws
Committee is charged with drafting a new permanent constitution and bylaws for Local 221,
which is a provisional local. The meeting was held for the purpose of presenting the officers with
a final draft of the new constitution and bylaws, to send to the International Union for review.
January 3, 2009 – charges page 3 of 4
Stewards Kroopkin and Wilson were attempting to attend to tell the Bylaws Committee and the
officers that it was lmethical, nndemocratic and wrong to send the draft to the International
without first having the draft reviewed by the membership of Local 221 and without
consideration of any revisions desired by the membership of our provisional local. Stewards
Kroopkin and Wilson were not allowed to state their position to the officers and committee
members at the meeting.
Local 221 should not have allowed these abuses by its Trial Board and by Secretary Lopez and
by Deputy Director Kostrinsky and by Director Balfour. Local 221 has shown utter contempt and
disregard for the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws.
Due to the above described August 27, 2008 and October 30, 2008 incidents, we charge
SEIU Local 221 with violation of the SEIU MEMBER BILL OF RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE UNION.
“The right to have opinions heard and respected, to be informed of union activity, to be educated in union
values and union skills.”
‘The right to have members’ concerns resolved in a fair and expeditious manner.”
“The responsibility to help build a strong and more effective labor movement, to support the organizing of
unorganized workers, to help build a political voice for working people, and to stand up for one’s coworkers
and all workers.”
“The responsibility to be informed about the internal governance of the union and to participate in the
conduct of the union’s affairs.”
“The responsibility to treat all workers and members fairly.”
“The responsibility to offefconstructive criticism of the union.”
5:
Due to the above described August 27, 2008 and October 30,2008 incidents, we charge
SEIU Local 221 with violation of the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws
Article XVII, Section 1:
“(1) Violation of any specific provision of this Constitution or of the Constitution and Bylaws of the “Local
Union;
“(2) Violation of an oath of office;
“(3) Gross disloyalty or conduct unbecoming a member;
“(4) If an officer, gross inefficiency which might hinder and impair the interests of the International Union
or the Local Union;”
and
“(6) Engaging in corrupt or unethical practices or racketeering;”
and
3
January 3,2009 – charges page 4 of 4
“(8) Violation of democratically and lawfully established rules, regulations, policies or practices of
the International Union or of the Local Union.”
and
“(11) The bringing of false charges against a member or officer without good faith or with
malicious intent.”
and
Section 2(b) “…The accused may appear in person and with witnesses to answer the charges
against him or her and shall be afforded a full and fair hearing. ”
And Article XVI, Section 1:
“No member of this International Union shall injure the interests of another member by
undermining such member in connection with wages or financial status or by any other act, direct
or indirect, which would wrongfully jeopardize a member’s office or standing.”
All of the Local 221 officers and Executive Board members have violated the oath of
office: “I will not knowingly wrong a member or see a member wronged if it is in my
power to prevent it”
Respectfully submitted,
Monty Kroopkin
3230 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92103 (858) 373-7018 — mkroopkin@juno.com
KathleenMcGlown
4240 Cloudywing Rd. Hemet, CA. suzzyaa@Yahoo.com
John Rochfort
8780 Hayes St., La Mesa, CA 91401 (619) 463- 8311 — irishniners@cox.net
Enclosures
cc: SEID President Andy Stern
OAKLAND HEALTHCARE WORKERS (UHW-W) PLAN VOTE ON SPLIT
George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Members of an Oakland-based union representing health care workers plan to vote on splitting with their parent organization, the Service Employees International Union, after SEIU moved to break up the local, United Healthcare Workers-West.
The local represents some 150,000 health care workers in Northern California, including 65,000 long-term-care workers. The parent union for several years has planned to consolidate into one local those workers with long-term-care workers in two other California locals, 521 in San Jose and 6434 in Los Angeles. On Friday, SEIU’s executive board voted to create the single union, with 240,000 members.
Ninety minutes after that announcement was made, United Healthcare Workers-West sent a letter to SEIU President Andy Stern requesting he schedule a vote for or against disaffiliation by the union’s local members.
That capped months of acrimony, during which time SEIU has accused United Healthcare Workers-West President Sal Rosselli of improperly diverting union dues, and began a process, still pending, for taking over the local through a trusteeship. SEIU filed suit against Rosselli in federal court, but it was dismissed by a judge who said the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Rosselli and the leadership of the Oakland-based local said the charges were baseless. On Friday, he and the local’s executive board said members requested the disaffiliation vote because of “the forced removal of 65,000 long-term-care members, the stifling of union members’ free speech rights and widespread corruption” by union leaders appointed by Stern.
SEIU wants to consolidate the long-term-care workers so that their sizable local is of a scale that can be the equal of employers in contract negotiations. Employers, SEIU says, often have advantages that come with being national and international enterprises.
The Oakland local said that under the SEIU constitution, a disaffiliation vote could be scheduled as soon as 60 days from Friday. SEIU said it will have recommendations for carrying out the consolidation process within 30 days.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Vivian Price wrote:
Thanks for sending the CSU announcement out, Rafe.
I’ve attached a save the date flyer for our Labor and Social Justice Fair.
CSU Dominguez Hills Labor Studies and the Labor Studies Club are planning a May Day Labor Fair and Conference for Thursday, April 30th, 2009 to be held on our campus. from noon to 9 PM. Our goal is to deepen connections among students, trade unions, social justice community organizations, and labor educators in Southern California. We invite you to be part of this event.
We planned the event so that we could inform and educate students about the history and current events in the labor and social justice movements the day before the 2009 May Day march, and encourage students to participate in this year’s May Day activities. Your involvement in planning the activities of our event helps us lay a solid foundation. Our students are about 35 percent African American and 35 percent Latina/o, 70 percent women, and majority working class. This is a great campus for enlarging the base for social movements in Los Angeles, and for dealing with the paradoxes that face communities of color.
Our vision is to have booths for all participating organizations where representatives can interact with students and community guests outside on the quad of our Loker Student Union. There will be a stage for speakers, skits, music, etc., and we will be serving refreshments for lunch and dinner. Workshops will be held inside.
The weekday time is selected to have optimum interaction with the student body, going from noon to about 6 pm. The evening schedule of cultural programming and a keynote speaker will be held in one of the ballrooms of Loker Student Union, and is timed to draw workers, academics and community participants.
CSU Dominguez Hills is part of a complex of labor education institutions in Los Angeles, together with UCLA, Trade Tech, Harbor College, the Dolores Huerta Institute, and others. All of these institutions are strengthening the visions of workers and leaders in the labor movement, and the CSUDH May Day event is a way to support all of our work and intensify our interactions with labor and social justice organizations.
Vivian Price
Assistant Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies/PACE
Coordinator, Labor Studies
California State University, Dominguez Hills
1000E Victoria St.
Carson, CA 90747
my office 310-243-3583 PACE office 310-243-3640
vprice@csudh.edu
http://cah.csudh.edu/labor
http://cah.csudh.edu/ids/
http://www.hardhatvideo.com
office fax 310-516-3339
THIS IS A LETTER MICHAEL ROSENBERG SENT ABOUT OUR PENSIONS…
—–Original Message—–
From: Michael R. [mailto:research.prognosticator@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:59 PM
To: pmcca28169@aol.com
Subject: Initiative 08-0018, The McCauley Public Employee Pension Reform Act
Mr. McCauley,
I have read your initiative and I’m a bit perplexed by how you could legally be upheld in court, given that you wish to retroactively change the terms and conditions of employment, even for those who have already retired. You do not even cite emergency economic conditions, such as pending failure of a public pension plan, as reason for taking such extreme measures. I believe your measure, though it may be very well intentioned, will not be held up in court, and thus ironically, you will only further waste taxpayers money and court time, should your measure reach the ballot and pass.
I’m wondering whether you also support lowering social security benefits for current retirees, when we have such increasing record breaking federal deficits. Do you also wish to support measures to retroactively retrieve golden parachutes paid to executives who made the poor decisions to drive their corporations to the brink of bankruptcy, and accepted a taxpayer bail-out? What about pursuing those companies that had already gone broke over the years, where pensions of long term employees were lost, yet the CEOs walked away with millions? Shouldn’t we be striving to place protections on all pension plans, both public and private, during this economically challenging time, so that workers who spend their entire work career believing in the promise of their pension, can believe when they have fulfilled their obligations, that their pension obligations will be there when they retire. We need to be building confidence of workers, not uncertainty, during
these critical times, to help stimulate the economy. A race to the bottom will only insure our economic demise.
Perhaps you could devote some of your time to changing the annual budget gridlock in Sacramento by supporting a simple “majority rules” measure, to pass an annual state budget out of the legislature. I like to think of it as the “End Sacramento Gridlock/Increase California Bond Ratings” measure, which will save taxpayers money when our bonds won’t be the lowest rated state in the nation.
Given your evident dedication, I would hope you would reconsider channeling your efforts in a more positive direction in helping to solve some of the many challenges we face.
–Michael
L.A. TIMES: SEIU opposes Proposition 1A
After playing coy for weeks, the powerful Service Employees International Union on Monday joined a new coalition opposed to Proposition 1A, the May 19 ballot measure intended to help stabilize the state’s teetering budget.
But the union, which represents a majority of the state government workforce, remains silent about how much money it’s willing to spend.
In the electoral calculus, it’s big dollars that count. A healthy war chest is needed to fund mass mailings and ads on radio and other media to spread the opposition gospel — that Proposition 1A was drafted on the run by Sacramento politicians and is “fatally flawed.”
Proposition 1A would extend the recently adopted tax increases for two years, sending more than $16 billion in additional revenue to state coffers while also putting limits on state spending and creating a “rainy day” fund.
Government employee unions typically have resisted spending caps that could hurt the programs that employ their workers. Besides the SEIU California State Council, groups participating in the coalition include the California Faculty Assn. and the California Federation of Teachers.
April 14, 2009
Division in the SEIU hierarchy over Prop 1A?
Capitol Bureau colleague Kevin Yamamura has this story about the opposition building against Prop 1A, including the 700,000-member Service Employees International Union’s California State Council.
What makes the council’s position of interest to state workers, of course, is that the measure’s defeat would spark more fiscal chaos for state government. And that could mean tougher talks at the bargaining table for state worker unions without a deal after the May 19 special election and, quite possibly, deeper cuts to state government jobs.
Kevin writes, “SEIU Local 1000, which represents 95,000 state employees, declined to comment. The state council is an SEIU umbrella organization that handles statewide political issues.”
By contrast, last month American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 2620, which represents about 5,000 state workers endorsed Prop 1A even though AFSCME international opposed it. We reported that split in this State Worker blog post.
What do you make of Local 1000’s no comment?
White House officials say no decision has been made to rescind state’s stimulus payment
The Obama administration has taken no action regarding $6.8 billion in funds. The issue centers on the legality of a wage cut for home healthcare workers who belong to a politically powerful union.
By Peter Nicholas and Evan Halper
9:51 PM PDT, May 11, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento and Washington — The Obama administration said Monday that it has made no decision about whether to rescind $6.8 billion in stimulus money allotted to California in a dispute over the legality of a wage cut for home healthcare workers who belong to a politically powerful union.
The announcement is at odds with what state officials said they had explicitly been told. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration said they were notified by senior Obama staff on May 3 that California’s plan to cut wages for unionized home healthcare workers violated the law that authorized the stimulus package.
“No final determination has been made. We are continuing to work closely with the state of California, and a legal review of the requirements of the Recovery Act [the stimulus law] with respect to this issue is ongoing,” said Nick Papas, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The governor’s office said Monday that messages coming from the Obama administration have been inconsistent. On April 30, officials in the governor’s office got a letter from the Obama administration notifying them that the wage cut violated the stimulus law, and spelling out the legal reasoning.
An Obama administration official said Monday the letter was sent out “inadvertently.”
Kim Belshe, California Secretary of Health and Human Services, said Monday: “We are encouraged the decision isn’t final. . . . We have received mixed signals from Washington. This process has been quite unusual.”
The Obama administration’s stance has sparked concerns about the influence of the Service Employees International Union. The wages at issue are paid to unionized workers who look after about 440,000 disabled and elderly Californians.
The workers contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to SEIU and the United Domestic Workers.
In an effort to save money and balance the state budget, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature planned to cut the state’s contribution to employee wages, effective July 1, from a maximum of $12.10 an hour to a maximum of $10.10, saving the state $74 million.
SEIU opposed the cuts and asked the Obama administration to look into whether they ran afoul of stimulus package provisions.
A phone call between the Obama and Schwarzenegger administrations took place April 15. California officials said they were troubled that the Obama administration invited SEIU officials to participate.
No one from the Obama administration would speak for the record about SEIU’s participation in the conference call. But one Obama official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said SEIU was allowed on the call in hopes of creating a dialogue “and in the interest of time and efficiency.”
“It was thought that it would be smart to put the parties together so they can discuss these issues and hear responses,” the Obama official said. “None of the parties objected to the arrangement when the call took place.”
An SEIU spokeswoman, Michelle Ringuette, has called suggestions that the union’s involvement was inappropriate “absurd.”
SEIU has myriad political ties to the Obama administration.
The union was among President Barack Obama’s largest campaign donors, contributing $33 million. The White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, is a former executive vice president of SEIU 1199, and federal lobbying reports show that Gaspard acted as a lobbyist for SEIU 1199 last year on children’s health issues.
SEIU’s California State Council is actively opposing a May 19 state ballot measure, with help from a consulting firm founded by one of Obama’s most trusted advisors. The “No on 1A” campaign paid AKPD Message and Media $230,000 last month for Internet advertising, California campaign finance records show. David Axelrod, an architect of Obama’s 2008 victory and now a senior advisor in the White House, founded AKPD.
Axelrod said in January he was selling his stake in the firm. His son Michael is an associate with the firm. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, is now a senior advisor to AKPD. Neither Plouffe nor Michael Axelrod is involved in the California ballot measure, according to John Del Cecato, a partner in the firm.
AKPD’s website features pictures of David Axelrod and Plouffe, along with Obama.
Two “No on 1A” officials who signed the committee’s campaign finance statements are also on the staff of the SEIU California State Council. “No on 1A” describes itself as “a coalition of teachers, faculty, nurses, healthcare providers, seniors and public employees.”
Mike Roth, a spokesman for “No on 1A,” dismissed any suggestion that the firm was chosen for its White House ties.
“The notion that there’s some connection there with the No on 1A campaign is absurd,” Roth said.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
evan.halper@latimes.com
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/023142.html?pageNum=2&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
The latest on California politics and government
June 16, 2009
GOP YouTube ad slams SEIU call for new taxes
The California Republican Party is running a pointed ad on YouTube in a low-budget answer to the Service Employee International Union’s $1 million television advertising blitz urging lawmakers to consider new taxes along with spending cuts.
While the SEIU commercial suggestively calls on the Legislature to tax oil extraction, cigarettes and alcohol to avoid slashing vital social programs, the GOP lambastes the union for “bullying state leaders in the budget process.”
To view, click here.
The text of the ad reads as follows:
Announcer: “Two million Californians are out of work and state leaders just imposed one of the largest tax increases in history. But the big labor unions want to raise your taxes again to try to protect every penny of state bureaucrats’ salaries.
Labor unions are spending millions on ads and are even bullying state leaders in the budget process with blatant threats to protect their bloated contracts.”
Video of SEIU speaker addressing legislators: “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory. And come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll help to get you out of office.”
Announcer: “For too long SEIU and their cronies have used intimidation to hijack the budget process. And with the economy in shambles, union bosses are now demanding even higher taxes on hardworking, overtaxed families. Call the Democrat leadership in Sacramento and tell them it’s time to stand up to the union bullies.”
Categories: State budget
Posted by Peter Hecht
well.. it’s like I thought!
I really like this blog good job.
Hey, Your Blog is excellent, found while in search for chapters info on bing and it has very related information on it. Will be sure to come back again and bookmark, thanks