Currently different regions of Local 721 pay their union dues at a different percentage rate or at a flat rate. The issue will most likely be addressed by the proposed Constitution and By-laws, which will eventually be ratified by the members of Local 721.
Should all Local 721 members pay their dues at the same percentage rate?
- The Dues Unification Committee met on 01-07-09. The committee approved a motion to recommend that effective 04-01-09, all newly hired members to bargaining units represented by Local 721 will begin to pay 1.5% of their monthly base salaries, as dues, to the local. It will be up to our Board of Director’s (BOD) to approve or reject the motion at their next BOD meeting, scheduled for 01-14-09. Until such time as a new arrangement is agreed upon, the current members of the Tri-Counties Region (Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo) continue to pay a flat rate dues amount of $36.29/month and current members of the Inland Empire Region (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) continue to also pay a flat rate dues amount of $24.00/month. The flat rates are for all current members, regardless of their income levels. Thanks to the push by Daniel Marquez, along with the support of other committee members, John Tanner announced that the dues amount for former Local 535 members will be frozen at the dues amount paid in December, 2008. The original intent was to reduce the dues amount to 1.5% of the monthly base salary. John Tanner told us that regardless of any pay increase received by former Local 535 members, in January, 2009, the dues amount would not be increased a penny more than what was paid in December, 2008. This move, apparently, does not require approval of the BOD’s.
Arturo
Why did LA county members vote against bringing all new employees to the same dues rate of 1.5 % ? Did you vote for that ?
Good point, Andy. When Annelle Grajeda was wooing the Ventura region, she gave them a promise that their dues wouldn’t be changed if they joined 721. But as more 721 members are finding out about who’s paying what, in dues money, there seems to be more resentment about “deals” that were “worked out”. The best way to change this situation is through our finalized 721 Constitution and By-laws. The dues could be set and standardized for all current and future 721 members and the power of the Executive Board to affect changes in dues payments could be limited. But, we may have to contend with the backlash from the regions that do not want their dues raised, but still want the degree of services a large local may provide.
Considering the number of members in their respective regions, do you think there is a middle ground for the amount of dues that could be collected across the board that could have minimal impact on the total 721 revenue?
In other words, if the dues were averaged out to about 1.25 % for all current and future 721 members, would that have too much of a negative impact on our 721 revenues?
Note: According to the latest figures, legacy 660 members dues accounts for about 72% percent of the 721 budget total. LA & OC cities accounts for about 12 % and the remainder (16%) between the other regions.
An Oldie but very interesting!
http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/mahz0qy2j1m.php
Members for Democracy Archive
Why the SEIU’s Andy Stern is Full of Shit
Let’s begin by asking a fair question. If SEIU President Andy Stern is such a shit hot labor leader, why the hell are so many SEIU members trying to get as far away from him and the SEIU as they can?
For the past few years, Stern has been setting himself up as the great messiah of the American labor movement, coming to save mainstream labor from eternal damnation by advocating bigger unionism as a solution to the failure of big unionism. The only problem is that the leaders of the mostly dead movement just won’t let the messiah come but that hasn’t stopped him from proselytizing about his vision of unionism – an most undemocratic vision, where armies of workers are led by strong leaders to… wherever the hell the leaders want to go.
While pitching his vision with the zeal of a missionary, Stern presents the SEIU as a progressive, reform-oriented union and himself as a tech-savvy new age guy. He’s even keeping a blog called fightforthefuture, where he shares his thoughts with whoever’s interested in them, frequently criticizing other union leaders while studiously refraining from looking in the mirror himself.
Dogs With A Bone
Stern’s ideas about the “retooling” of labour have found favour with the leaders of the democracy-challenged Carpenters, Laborers, Needletrades and Hotel Employees’ unions. The capos of those despotic outfits have even formed their own club, the New Unity Partnership (NUP) to advocate their vision of a bigger, stronger, more despotic labour movement run by – them.
So far, Stern’s efforts at bringing the AFL-CIO into his posse have fallen flat and he’s been getting really pissed off about that – to the point where he recently threatened to pull out of the AFL-CIO.
But while Stern huffs and puffs and threatens to blow the American House ‘o Labor down, SEIU members are trying to escape from his house.
Big dog union leaders like Fido McCarron, Rover O’Sullivan and the recently conjoined Spot Wilhelm and Spike Raynor, who have been following Andy’s scent like a bunch of hound dogs smelling a sexy bitch might bark at the audacious disloyalty of those ungrateful SEIU members, but we expect as much from guys who get headaches thinking outside of their boxes.
These dogs are panting at the prospect of being the generals in Andy’s army where they’ll lead legions of machine heads who will lead the great army of labour to wherever-the-hell. Just like they do today – only bigger! But that’s the future that his bigness wants to create. Let’s talk about the present.
Why are members running away from Andy Stern’s great big utopian SEIU?
The SEIU is undemocratic. Some SEIU members want real democracy in their union – the kind that’s of, for and by the rank and file. They’re just not sold on the idea that handing their voices and their brains over to some self appointed guru who wants to run his union like a business is going to serve their interests. There’s just something about being “ruled” by some big dick and having to pay for the privilege that grates on people. Consequently a lot of SEIU members have been trying to flee to the neighbors to escape what passes for representation in the SEIU.
Thousands Flee
In 2002 hundreds of San Francisco janitors rallied at two separate meetings to discuss the possible decertification from SEIU Local 1877. On August 5, 2004 over 2,000 janitors voted on whether they wanted to leave the SEIU and join the United Service Workers For Democracy Local 87. The decertification attempt was a major embarrassment to President Stern as he advocated reform of the AFL-CIO.
Fearing a loss in this important election, Stern rushed to San Francisco to personally lobby janitors to vote to stay in the SEIU. He and his supporters warned the janitors that if they voted to decertify SEIU Local 1877 no other AFL-CIO unions would support them and that they could lose their pension and healthcare benefits.
Behind the move to decertify was a lengthy battle between the SEIU International and the membership of the San Francisco janitor’s local which had been the focus of a legendary organizing drive in the 1990’s.
After inducting thousands of them into its progressive fold, the SEIU pushed the elected local president out, placed the local in trusteeship and forced a merger with statewide SEIU Local 1877 onto the rank and filers.
“The trusteeship and merger take away our precious democratic rights and threaten our jobs and wages. Even though members overwhelmingly reject their actions, SEIU is forging ahead with its plan,” said Richard Leung, who was ousted as president of Local 87 in the SEIU takeover. “All they care is to raise and collect our union dues while they are busy making backroom deals with employers. As long as we remain in SEIU, we are forced to accept their sellout plan.”
There was strong internal opposition from the workers themselves. Many wanted a split from SEIU altogether. Richard Leung, Local 87 President ousted by the trusteeship, led the charge against the merger with “bigger is better” local 1877.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against the SEIU for threatening San Francisco janitors with the loss of their benefits. The threats, made in handbills and at meetings, were aimed to discourage janitors from signing petitions to decertify SEIU and forming their own independent union. The NLRB complaint alleged that SEIU is “restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the (National Labor Relations) Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.”
In a further action, the NLRB issued another complaint against San Francisco’s largest janitorial contractor, Able Building Maintenance, for “rendering assistance and support” to the SEIU “by directing its employees to meet, during work time, with representatives of SEIU International” in its campaign against USWD. The Board found that Able Building Maintenance “has been rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.”
That’s Andy Stern’s union. This was SEIU Local 87: Local 87 Gets its Broom Dusted.
In the fall of 2004 SEIU was to feel the effects of a major defeat. Service Employees International Union Local 1877 was decertified for the vast majority of San Francisco janitors and a new, independent union, United Service Workers for Democracy Local 87, was certified in its place.
San Francisco janitors working for the largest contractors in the city voted based upon petitions they presented to the NLRB requesting an election. The final tally was:
* 1,698 eligible voters (including part-time and temporary employees)
* 18 void ballots
* 121 challenged ballots
* 573 votes for SEIU Local 1877
* 947 votes for USWD Local 87
This was a major defeat for the SEIU. Why did the janitors run away?
According to a report from The Socialist Worker:
For their part, the janitors’ defection was prompted in part by recent concessionary contracts and by the heavy-handed intervention of the international union. In the last two years, the SEIU has removed the elected leadership of the janitors’ local, fired the staff, placed the local in trusteeship and forced the local into a merger into the statewide janitors’ Local 1877–all over the objections of the membership of Local 87 and without a vote by the rank and file.
Some of the janitors would continue to be represented by SEIU Local 1877 because their units didn’t ask the NLRB for a vote, or the petitions did not have enough signatures to meet NLRB requirements.
The strong-arm tactics that the SEIU used against Local 87 weren’t unusual. The SEIU pulled the same stunt at San Francisco Local 14, seizing control of the local and forcing a merger with Local 1877 even though the members voted against it. After the merger, SEIU 1877 signed a sweetheart contract allowing their employer to replace workers making $17 an hour and full benefits with workers making $9 an hour and no benefits.
In March 2004 91 percent of full-time employees in 21 counties signed a petition to de-certify Local 250 in favor of the new National Emergency Medical Services Association.
In July 2004, about two dozen emergency medical workers protested against SEIU Local 250, for interfering with their right to choose another union.
“They’ve used delaying tactics for at least five months,” said Torren Colcord, a paramedic in San Joaquin County and president of the National Emergency Medical Services Association, the new group seeking to represent the workers.
The SEIU fought back filing unfair labor charges and a lawsuit.
In September 2004, the SEIU local narrowly averted decertification by nearly 2,400 employees of American Medical Response (AMR), a large national ambulance conglomerate. The escape attempt pitted Local 250 against a newly formed National Emergency Medical Services Association (NEMSA).
The NLRB election resulted in a draw, with the 660 workers voting for the International Association of EMT’s & Paramedics and 604 voting to go with the upstart NEMSA. Unknown to many members, Local 250 signed a “service agreement” with the IAEP in August 2004 which enabled it to keep the members in its pocket.
In Canada, who can forget the famous SEIU-CAW matter where, in 2000, some 30,000 SIEU members attempted to flee Andy’s union to join the Canadian Auto Workers. Well over half of them made it over the fence by the time the “matter” was settled (secretly, with an exchange of dollars). What prompted them to flee? Huge unresponsive locals, crappy representation, employer-friendly deals and the promise of a dues hike and more bigness (the merger of the existing big locals into a great big regional undemocratic lump) on the horizon. An SEIU spokesthing called the CAW’s decision to accept the fleeing members, “like stealing your brother’s children”.
Larger Pens and Taller Fences
So with members running away and paternalistic officials building better fences, Stern pontificates about the need to build an army of labor and retool the U.S. labor movement based on the premise that bigger is better. His own army will hit 1.8 million by the end of 2004. With all that bigness, he sees larger unions as the as the answer to battling big corporations.
Of course, Stern hasn’t explained what the SEIU’s current bigness has accomplished for those 1.8 million members or why so many of them seem so damned intent on escaping from his union. Nor has he had much to say about suggestions that a lot of the SEIU’s current bloat has come from easy-to-organize public-sector workers in home health aid and child care and not among the hard ass private-sector employers.
From what we can tell, the answers to those questions lie in more bigness – the new big national labor movement advocated by the New Unity Partnership – where existing union members would be herded into 15 big centralized unions run by big strong men each of whom has a big designated turf (jurisdiction) to conquer.
The NUP plan calls for lots of centralization, lots of streamlining, lots of appointments from above–and it consciously advocates less union democracy. Stern recently wrote, “The purpose of union structures is for workers to be able to unite, fight and win together, not make it easier or harder (to) elect or reelect the leaders.” Socialist Worker
Andy Stern’s labor movement will be just like the SEIU, only bigger, stronger and less democratic!
The abject failure of the current crop of biggie unions to stop the rout of our community by corporate interests and their dogs isn’t a factor worth considering. Neither is the suggestion that when workers elect their leaders, it’s more likely that those leaders will represent the workers’ interests – thus making them stronger. That’s one of those abstractions that Andy Stern doesn’t have time for. Notwithstanding the mountain of evidence that big unions are undemocratic unions and undemocratic unions are ineffective, corrupt and run by idiots, Stern craps on the idea of union democracy. Here he is crapping on democracy from his fight for my future – oops, that’s fight for your future blog:
Workers want their lives to be changed. They want strength and a voice, not some purist, intellectual, historical, mythical democracy. Workers can win when they are united, and leaders who stand in the way of change screaming “democracy” are failing to understand how workers exercise the limited power they have in a country where only 8.2% of the private sector are in unions. They just don’t get it!
Stern recently made a commitment of $1 million to fund “a network of workers and communities” to confront the dreaded Wal-Mart (which, according to House o’ Labor rules is the ineffective, corrupt United Food and Commercial Workers Union’s turf). Is Stern looking to buy a bunch of lost souls – on the cheap? (A million bucks is chump change for a man of his bigness.) What’s Stern really after?
Is his bigness trying to poach on the UFCW’s turf or is Stern just sniffing around Coco Hansen’s butt?
It’s a Dog’s Life
“I was disappointed,” Stern said after a recent AFL-CIO gabfest, “that we missed another opportunity to have an honest and frank discussion of how unions need to change in order to make sure that we can impact workers.”
It’s just as well. If the last several decades of labor history tell us anything, it’s that big undemocratic unions impact workers and keep impacting them, over and over again, with crappy contracts, backroom deals, lousy representation and layers of loyal machine heads who love the leader and dread the world outside the union office walls.
Fortunately, Andy Stern’s big NUP is never going to get off the ground. He’s pissed off too many other big dicks of labor to ever get the kind of support he needs to make it happen. At best he and his posse will break off and form their own pile of dead wood which will spend most of its time pissing on the AFL-CIO’s pile of dead wood. While their respective leaders are busy arguing about whose is bigger, the community of workers can move on.
http://www.alternet.org/story/30760/
Contest and Consequences
By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted January 13, 2006.
A labor union’s $100,000 contest inviting its networked community to submit fresh ideas on how to improve the lives of working Americans has sparked an online revolt.
It was supposed to be one of the Service Employees International Union’s leaps into bottom-up online consensus building, but the community blowback at the Since Sliced Bread project that broke out this week has all the appearances of being an online revolt.
Since Sliced Bread is a $100,000 contest inviting people to send in ideas to improve the lives of working people in America. As described by SEIU on the site: The contest encouraged ordinary Americans, policy experts and economists to enter fresh ideas on how to create the kinds of jobs that allow people to raise families, obtain affordable health insurance, pay for college and save for retirement.”
The design of Since Sliced Bread appeared in many respects fairly open and bottom-up oriented. Anyone could send in proposals. Visitors were encouraged to participate in the community blog.
A staggering number of ideas — more than 22,000 — were submitted in a matter of months. After the deadline for submissions passed, a group of “diverse experts” winnowed them down to 70. Then, each of the contest’s judges, who come from a variety of fields and across the political spectrum, voted for 21 finalists, who will all appear in a “Since Sliced Bread” book with an introduction by SEIU president Andy Stern.
But oddly enough, of the 21 finalists, few would appear out of place in the playbook of even the least revolutionary of Washington think tanks — like, say, that of the corporate-funded, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council (DLC): Teaching schoolchildren how to be fiscally responsible, or creating a ProdiMae/ServiMac: “similar to FannieMae/FreddieMac’s mission, but for [small and medium businesses (SMBs)] — provide an efficient secondary market for equity/debt so SMBs can get funding through local funders who would then sell those instruments in the secondary market — unleashing national sources of capital for SMBs.”
Indeed, Marshall Wittman, now a staffer for the DLC, an organization widely loathed by Democratic activists outside of Washington who believe it has sold out the party to corporate interests, is one of Since Sliced Bread’s featured bloggers. Wittman is also a former legislative director for Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition and speaker for the conservative Heritage Foundation and Hudson Institute.
Universal health care is on the list of 21 finalists, but it’s hardly a new idea: Harry Truman put it in the Democratic Party platform more than half a century ago. While the list includes an idea to blanket the United States with wireless internet access, it doesn’t accurately reflect some of the more radical concepts the entrants put forth, such as a suggestion to “annually ostracize a lobbyist,” something that, in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, doesn’t seem entirely out of place, or using computers to ensure that all Americans participate in the political process.
But winnowing out the 21 finalists was left up to the “diverse experts” and the judges’ choices were … final.
And then, as the contest put it, “[s]tarting at 9 a.m. EST on Monday, January 9, Americans began the first round of online voting to choose the best three ideas from the 21 finalists.”
Voters are encouraged to cast a ballot for up to three ideas. After a whittling down process, involving a series of votes, on Sunday, Jan. 22, the “three ideas that received the most votes will be submitted to the judges, who will pick the first-place winning idea and the runners-up.” In order to sweeten the pot, “the creator of the best idea since sliced bread will receive a $100,000 prize, and the two runners-up will each receive $50,000 prizes.”
But only a few days into the voting process, things started going terribly pear-shaped. In a nutshell, the big contention is that the judges picked a bunch of rather unfresh and tame ideas.
“NO VOTE FROM ME! All these ideas suck. I wouldn’t pay $5 for any of them. What a waste of time,” went one commenter’s response. “I too am very disappointed in the lack of originality and diversity in the final selections,” wrote another. “Three selections out of 21 involve national health care, which may be a great idea but is hardly original. ”
These comments came in response to Andy Stern’s call for appreciation of the ideas that were chosen after the initial blowback: “I confess — I’m a bit surprised at the hostility meeting the 21 ideas announced yesterday morning,” he wrote. “Let’s take a minute to appreciate the work of the 21 people who are finalists — they are amazing ideas that deserve discussion and consideration.”
“If this is what is considered ‘amazing’ we really, really have sunken to new depths,” one commenter responded. Hundreds of commenters offered similar sentiments of disappointment at the 21 finalists.
Asked about the online reaction, Gina Glantz, a senior advisor to SEIU, pointed out that Since Sliced Bread is an experiment, a foray into how to interact with an online community for an organization with little history to guide its actions. She said that as the contest had progressed, input from the community was constantly incorporated into the process. Glantz called it “remarkable” that more than 22,000 ideas were submitted, and that even the negative backlash was a testament to the fact that, in just a few short months, SEIU had a “passionate community” on its hands. The response, she said, was a “credit to the contest.”
Glantz gave evidence for SEIU’s willingness to embrace and adapt to the criticism by pointing out that on Thursday, Jan. 12, Since Sliced Bread asked the community how best to “spotlight and promote other good ideas” outside of the 21 selected.
Aside from the anger at the finalist ideas themselves, the community expressed strong distaste for the process arranged to select the entrants, and the judges SEIU picked to do the task. Who are the judges? Washington establishment political careerists and policy mandarins, for the most part. Among them are Andy Stern, SEIU director; Bill Bradley, managing director, Allen & Co., LLC, and former U.S. senator, D-N.J.; Bill Frenzel, former Republican congressman from Minnesota and guest scholar, economic studies, The Brookings Institute; and Gail Christopher, vice president, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Office of Health, Women and Families.
Glantz said that SEIU had set out to find a “broad swath” of judges ranging in age, expertise and ideology. Other judges include Wendy Kopp, president and founder of Teach for America, and David Sifry, founder and CEO of the blog search engine Technorati.
“I must confess that I am extremely disappointed in the final list,” Michael W. wrote in the comments section. “The real shame is that the judges’ list has had the effect of throwing a bucket of cold water over the optimism and excitement that was generated by this contest. The excitement is gone, since nothing new and or revolutionary was considered ’safe’ for the final list. In retrospect, I guess we shouldn’t have had such high expectations given the list of judges and their qualifications. But hope springs eternal, and in this contest, hope was snuffed out with the cold water of ‘politics as usual.’”
Since Sliced Bread exposes how far established member groups have to go in adopting democratic platforms for decision-making and consensus-building projects. Already some other organizations have employed online tools for users to rank the concepts they like, as the progressive advocacy group TrueMajority displayed in late 2004, urging its members to use the “Eve” bulletin board format to prioritize their ideas.
The Since Sliced Bread saga is far from over, and there is plenty of time for SEIU to adapt to its community’s critiques. It bears pointing out that the number of dissatisfied commenters does not reflect anywhere near the number of people who contributed ideas. At the same time, this author has never seen such outrage from an online community toward an institutional host. Moreover, those in favor of the 21 ideas and the process that selected them could have gone online and defended Since Sliced Bread. However, only a tiny fraction of the comments display any kind of support or defense of the project’s outcome.
But SEIU’s marked attempt to evolve with the community may lead to greater conciliation and interaction in its future projects. The challenge is for SEIU to relate effectively with a networked community it helped create.
The debacle illustrates what can happen when a top-down member organization like a major labor union tries a “web 2.0″ approach without fully preparing itself for all the implications of empowering a network or community — that the participants in fact expect to have power. But how could the union have avoided this outcome? There are few historical examples to guide how to get something like this right, much less offer a definition of what “right” is. Trailblazing is a trial-by-fire process. And just because SEIU got a little burned shouldn’t be cause for them to stop trying.
Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.
About “In other words, if the dues were averaged out to about 1.25 % for all current and future 721 members, would that have too much of a negative impact on our 721 revenues?
Note: According to the latest figures, legacy 660 members dues accounts for about 72% percent of the 721 budget total. LA & OC cities accounts for about 12 % and the remainder (16%) between the other regions.”
1.5% should keep us in-the-black, right? Barely, if there is no decert of 721 to fight off? Is it true that some of the legacy locals will get their dues reduced to get down to 1.5%?
Don’t the dues take most of the COLA the cities or counties give us? Why does so much money have to go to Stern, anyway? With our members facing furloughs, 100% higher co-pays, giving back $18.25 MILLION to the City of LA, retirement concessions, parking fee increases and layoffs or having our jobs go to private companies if we don’t give up our COLAs, how much CAN we afford to give back? Give it ALL back to save our jobs? Will Schoonover & Butcher make more backroom deals that we won’t be able to vote to stop? I think AFSCME is starting to look for other solutions than just ours.
It’s all very scary but I’m sure Mayee will make everything sound like a great, win-win for us!
The General consensus of members at 721 is to bring us all at an equitable percentage rate, which is, so far, at 1.5%….eventually. But the problem that seems to be the sticking point is how and when. Many of the county members feel that whomever is not paying 1.5% should start paying 1.5% immediately. Or that their county dues rate should come down to 1.25%…..immediately. Of course, the 721 budget would take an immediate hit and the staff, of course, would have to tighten their belts as well. The question really comes down to money and who will eventually control it. Will it be a member driven executive board duly elected by the membership in a fair, open and honest election? Or will it be an obedient executive board beholden to the International as the result of a rigged election?
That battle over control of the Union is currently being fought at the Governance Committee, that is currently writing the By-Laws…….that will determine the authority and method for determining the dues for the 721 union.
As for concessions to LA City….no matter how it comes out, the spin will always try to give the impression that there was not other way to survive the budget deficit. A couple of weeks ago, a staff member got up in front of 721 members and tried to give us a bleak picture of the LA City Budget, but was doing so only with the information from the General Fund. As those of us who are familiar with the LA City budget know, that is only one of three parts to the entire picture. The other two parts to the budget are the Special General Fund and the Special Fund. The staff person had to admit that he did not consider the latter two, and was only going by the General Fund. Lots of unanswered questions at that meeting.
Why can we not vote to have our Dues reduced by 10% ?
Our salary apparently is on the chopping block via furloughs.
Who are all these boards and commissions? I never voted for a single one yet they represent me somehow.
I have an Idea Why don’t we make a motion to reduce dues to 0.35% AS an “Emergency Measure”?
Our constitution should have a clause that when ever we fail to get a COL increase, Our dues are automatically reduced.
I’m sure our union will tell us how important it is to steal I mean use our money for cigar rooms and the like but let’s be honest we pay to much.
Antonio, the manner in which this dues amount will be addressed is through the constitution and by-laws. As it stands currently, it would be draft # 12, if it is ratified by the general membership. The Governance Committee, which was the committee that was to work on the proposed by-laws, was composed of a “floating” membership. That means that any member could sign up and vote on that days proposals or submit proposals. It turned into a “get out the vote” campaign and as a result it was turning chaotic, where different factions were campaigning to settle for Draft # 12, Which does not contain a recall procedure or term limits for Officers.
There is a dues unification committee that meets at the Union Hall. Call the 721 union [213-482-6660] and/or look at their website for the calendar.
Apparently, for some information a member has to do research and dig for it.