Ok it has started in wcr... ths scabs are going around telling everyone that the LA kaiser employees lost their benefits because they voted for nuhw
Small Kaiser Group Votes to Take Risk with NUHWAs most readers will recall, that number of members who have "chosen to stay united" in Zombie UHW has routinely (at least until today) been "over 55,000" - notwithstanding the fact that a huge chunk of that people having "chosen to stay united" were forced to do so by the NLRB.
Ballots counted Tuesday, January 26 in an election among 2,300 Kaiser professionals, psych-social workers, and RNs show that those workers voted to leave SEIU-UHW to join NUHW. The election only affects this small group in Southern California and not the nearly 50,000 other SEIU-UHW members at Kaiser who are launching the biggest and most active statewide contract campaign in history.
NUHW has put these workers at grave risk for their own purposes. These workers had their raises and benefits locked in for almost two years. Now, they will have to re-bargain their contract on their own in this economic crisis--at the same time Kaiser is cutting healthcare and other costs among management and non-union workers.
Over the past year, 53,464 SEIU members have chosen to stay united in SEIU-UHW for better wages, healthcare, and other benefits. Only 2,600, including the recent Kaiser workers, have chosen NUHW, which still has no members under contract and few resources to fight for workers
Per John Borsos, NUHW VP: We were just notified by the NLRB that the board has DENIED seiu and Kaiser's request for review meaning the ballot count will commence at 9 am tomorrow. Onward to victory.
Hospital admits NUHW won majority in union election, agrees on challenged ballotsIt is not surprising to see a certain lack of grace regarding this outcome from SEIU. However, much like the drubbing the Purple Plague took at Doctor's, they just can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of people rejecting their brand and their leadership.
"Sour grapes": With less than 3% of vote, defeated SEIU still trying to stand in workers' way
Santa Rosa, Calif.—One month after a hotly contested union election at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, both hospital management and the newly-elected National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) have agreed to accept a determination by the federal government that resolves the question of 13 challenged ballots and gives the new union an absolute majority.
"There's no question that my co-workers and I are joining NUHW," said Melissa Bosanco, a care partner at the hosptial. "We voted NUHW because we want a voice to make our hospital a better place to work and a better place for our community to get care."
The National Labor Relations Board determined that 12 of the 17 challenged ballots should not be counted because the voters were not eligible under the rules of the election; another ballot will not be counted because of stray marks on the ballot. The four challenged ballots left unresolved are not enough to affect the final result: 283 votes for NUHW, 263 for No Union, and 13 for SEIU.
Both the union and hospital management have signed an agreement accepting to the labor board's determination, but the defeated SEIU, which tried unsuccessfully to interfere in the election, has not. After being soundly rejected by more than 96 percent of voters, SEIU officials are still refusing to accept the outcome, a move that could cause another short delay for workers hoping to get to the bargaining table as soon as possible.
"Isn't that the worst case of sour grapes?" asked Bosanco. "SEIU said they cared about workers at our hospital, but it looks like they were just lying to try to get our votes."
Memorial Hospital management is still pressing forward with objections to the election, claiming that workers were confused when they voted for union representation. Those objections could be dismissed within weeks.
Elected officials and religious leaders have called on hospital management to drop its objections, including Sonoma County Supervisor Shirlee Zane, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, State Senators Mark Leno and Pat Wiggins, Assemblymembers Jared Huffman, Noreen Evans, and Wes Chesbro, local Catholic leader Monsignor John Brenkle, and former Sister of St. Joseph of Orange JoAnn Consiglieri.
Friends - after only three days of voting, SEIU acknowledges it's headed towards a defeat in the Kaiser elections. As you'll see in the email below, SEIU yesterday filed NLRB charges in a desperate effort to delay the vote count and challenge the election results. Rest assured that we'll make every effort to ensure that Kaiser workers' ballots are counted on the 26th.
As many of you have experienced, the support for NUHW is truly overwhelming. For example, in the days before the election, 70% of the RNs signed their names to a public petition in support of NUHW.
As for SEIU, it appears that after their experience at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, they're now trying to preemptively block the ballot count rather than face another landslide victory by NUHW. SEIU's actions will be seen for what they are: a sign of weakness and another failed attempt to stop workers from exercising their democratic vote.
Keep up the great work and let's make sure that every NUHW supporter in the Professional units gets a chance to vote.
Sal
This week Kaiser RNs completed voting on January 6 and 7th, and the ballots have now been impounded by the NLRB. Healthcare Professionals and Psych-Social Workers have received their mail-in ballots which must be received by the NLRB by January 25. The ballots in all units may or may not be counted at that time depending on the decision of the National Board in Washington, D.C. In either case, the final results of this election could be in question due to the actions of NUHW staff.
Before and during the election process NUHW staff engaged in behavior that undermined the democratic process, interfered with patient care and threatened SEIU-UHW members. Kaiser Management initiated a number of unlawful policy changes that allowed NUHW to operate in ways that compromised our workplace.
SEIU-UHW has filed the following Unfair Labor Practice charges:
Unilateral change and unlawful application of access policy
* Kaiser allowed NUHW staff to conduct meetings in non-public areas: Kaiser's policy states that only Kaiser employees, vendors or people with business with the hospital (patients, patient visitors, etc) can access Kaiser facilities except for public cafeterias and other places where commercial business is conducted. NUHW staff has routinely accessed patient care and other non-public areas of the facilities to conduct meetings, in some instances with the explicit authorization of Kaiser Management.
* Kaiser allowed the distribution of unauthorized materials: Kaiser's access policy clearly states that there shall be no distribution of unauthorized materials on Kaiser's premises by anyone - employees or non-employees. NUHW routinely passed out literature, stickers and posters on Kaiser's premises in violation of the policy and Kaiser has done nothing about it.
Kaiser Management unlawfully negotiating with NUHW
Despite the fact that NUHW is not the bargaining agent of Kaiser employees, Kaiser Management negotiated with NUHW staff and representatives about access issues on December 30.
SEIU-UHW will be filing more charges regarding other unilateral changes that Kaiser has made affecting Kaiser RNs, Healthcare Professionals and Psych-Social Workers in the coming weeks.
Oy.
I can only suppose that part of this is derived from Zombie UHW's definition of "NUHW staff" which is composed almost entirely of rank-and-file activists and former UHW stewards who have decided to side with Team Red. Because NUHW does not have the resources of Zombie UHW and its Purple Plague overlords, we have to do our organizing on the "retail" level, in other words person-to-person, instead of killing entire forests for throwaway hit-piece mailers, and NUHW is smart enough to know the KP staff isn't going to stand for a bunch of Robocalls from back east.
Bottom line - SEIU and Zombie UHW know they are going to lose this election, and in fact may well get very badly mauled similar to what happened at SRMH, and so they are trying to muddy the waters so much that the election effectively is "nixed" until such time as they can get a more favorable ruling from the NLRB in regards to this election.
Zombie UHW no longer has the wontons to stand on its own, and is now merely a proxy organization, a shell entirely subservient to the whims of Our Glorious Maximum Leader and his cloven-hooved minions Esquirol Medina and Brave Sir Regan.
On Christmas Eve, Terri Fernandez, UHW Zombie and rep with a reported history of being aggressive towards members, was at Kaiser Sunset doing her job as rep-i.e. eating lunch in the cafeteria.
One of the Sunset RNs saw Terri's purple shirt and decided to introduce herself and say, "I'm one of the RNs and I pay your salary and I just thought you'd like to see the union that we're voting for." She then showed Terri a leaflet that had dozens of RNs pictured on it.
Terri was NOT amused by this and grabbed the leaflet and ripped it in half said "I don't want anything that you have. You're a thief."
Some other RNs attracted by the ruckus came over and they were also treated to the Fernandez warmth-Terri proceeded to stamp, point her fingers at both of them and repeat, "Thief, thief!"
The RN's, who remain unclear why their rep would call them thieves, turned to their Kaiser co-workers who are still waiting for a decert election from the board and pointed out that the lady in question was not an errant psych patient, but the woman who was supposed to represent them for the union.
Now facing an election they spent millions of dollars to block, SEIU officials are circulating an email threatening to break up the Kaiser Coalition if the professional chapters vote to maintain their autonomy by joining NUHW.One of the members of the SoCal KP units wrote a letter to the Executive Director of the CKPU regarding SEIU's threat...
Their threat is nothing but a last-ditch effort by Washington, D.C. officials who prioritize their own personal power over the needs of healthcare workers like us. And that's exactly why we chose NUHW.
SEIU knows that when Kaiser professionals join NUHW, the rest of the Kaiser employees will follow, because our chapters have always led the way in achieving the highest wages and benefits. We will continue the rich history of our chapters in NUHW with the people who have been working with us side-by-side on our professional practice issues for years.
In less than a year since SEIU took over, they've given away part of Kaiser workers' pension, agreed to eliminate 1,800 jobs, and gutted the Labor/Management Partnership by removing virtually all of the elected stewards and other members who served on LMP committees.
We're voting NUHW to put an end to these divisive tactics, protect our wages and benefits and our April wage increase, and restore democracy and integrity to our union. We won't let SEIU keep tearing down our contract and we won't let them break apart the Coalition.
Mr. August,Should you wish to amend Charlie's excellent letter, Mr. August can be contacted by E-mail at "johndavidaugust@gmail.com".
I am a Kaiser employee, Clinical Psychologist, and currently a UHW member. I have been very involved in LMP as a UBT member both locally and regionally, LMP co-lead, and trained LMP facilitator, and highly value the LMP process. I received your statement today from the CKPU regarding membership to CKPU and participation in LMP.
Firstly let me say that I have always respected your work with Kaiser and LMP. You have done wonderful things in the past to bring employees and managers together to discuss ways to make Kaiser the best place it can be for our health plan members and for employees.
Today however I am very disappointed with your statement and decision. I certainly do understand that Andy Stern is the head of CKPU and you are under his employ, and as such are in a difficult position to follow his demands or lose your job.
You should know that we as members ARE supporting NUHW and WILL win our decertification vote because we have been very disappointed with the direction Andy Stern and the UHW trustees have taken our union and do not agree with their policies, corporate unionism, and back-door deals with management.
I am very disturbed that you do not support our members' right to determine which union we want to represent us. You are threatening that if we choose NUHW through a federal legal process, exercising our rights, that you will not allow us to be part of CKPU or LMP.
Is not a union made up of it members and members voices? Is not unionism a democratic process where we as members have a right to take their union in the direction we feel is best for us and for those we serve? Does not LMP consist of union members (no matter which union) working together with management for the good of all?
I just don't understand how banning NUHW from participation does anyone any good. It does not benefit CKPU, LMP, Kaiser, or any of the other unions in the coalition. It is simply one more of Mr. Stern's scare tactics to not lose his union members.
As of today I have lost all respect for you and see now that you are simply a puppet in Mr. Stern's hands to manipulate and carry out his agenda within Kaiser. I don't think you understand that you are dealing with intelligent, highly educated professionals within these three professional bargaining units, who are not going to be fooled by SEIU (and now CKPU) propaganda and will not fall to your threats.
Charlie Morgan, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Kaiser Permanente San Diego
The best way to face misinformation is to confront it with a serious dose of truth, and we get it here in spades.Q: What choices will be on the ballot?
There will be three choices on the ballot: SEIU-UHW, NUHW, or No Union. Whichever of the three receives 50% + 1 of the actual votes cast will win the election. If there is no clear majority, there will be a run off between the two highest vote getters.
Q: What happens to our contract when we change unions?
All of the wages, benefits, and other provisions of the contract stay in place until we negotiate a new contract. The NLRB ruled in 2001 that when workers change unions current wages, scheduled contract wage increases and current benefits continue. If we don’t change unions, SEIU-UHW can continue trading away our jobs and benefits and we’ll have no right to vote on changes, as they did with the pension reductions and layoffs.
Q: What will dues be in NUHW?
Our dues will be 25% lower than they were in SEIU-UHW. At NUHW’s founding convention, our professional chapter representatives, along with other delegates voted to reduce our dues since we would no longer be sending part of our dues to SEIU in Washington, D.C.
Q: I read a Q&A written by a law firm that claimed we’ll lose money if we choose NUHW. Are they being truthful?
No. It is a total fabrication. Our existing wages, scheduled wage increases and existing benefits remain intact. Under the law there can be no changes unless we and Kaiser agree to any changes. SEIU’s pamphlet was written by the same attorneys who used legal tricks with the labor board to hold up our election for nine months. The NLRB just ruled that none of SEIU’s charges were valid. SEIU’s attorneys carefully worded the pamphlet to mislead us and create as much fear as possible.
Q: SEIU says Kaiser can change our wages if bargaining reaches an “impasse.” Is that true?
In the more than 25 years of bargaining with Kaiser, the professional chapters have never reached impasse. It is an insult to every one of us for SEIU-UHW to imply that the strongest units at Kaiser could fail to bargain a contract when we have successfully negotiated the best contracts with the same experienced NUHW negotiators and professional chapter leaders on our side.
Futhermore, a “lawful impasse” is a rare situation that can only be certified by the NLRB, and it requires that the employer has bargained in good faith.
Q: When do we start bargaining with Kaiser?
After we elect a rank-and-file bargaining team and meet with the membership to determine improvements we want to make. We will develop proposals and then notify Kaiser that we’re ready to start bargaining.
Q: Do we need a big Union to protect our contract?
SEIU didn’t win our contract. We did. We won together in Local 535, and we won in UHW until the trusteeship, because professional chapter leaders and members were in control. It’s always been about our power and our strength.
By contrast, since SEIU has taken over UHW, they have begun to gut our contract, by removing our elected stewards without a vote, giving away part of our retirement package against our will and without our knowledge, and made a backroom deal to lay off 1,800 of our co-workers. We cannot trust them with our contract.
In NUHW we’ll protect our wages and benefits just like we always have.
Q: What has SEIU done to our pension since they took over in January?
SEIU made a deal with Kaiser to cut our pension, forcing many workers to retire early. SEIU didn’t let us vote on whether we wanted to give up our benefits. Kaiser’s justification was that the stock market had dropped below 8,000, lowering the pension funds’ value. Now the market is back up to 10,400, but SEIU didn’t ask for any reinstatement of benefits when the market recovered. Joining NUHW is the only way to stop SEIU from making more deals like that.
Q: What has SEIU done to our job security since they took over in January?
SEIU eroded our job security rights by negotiating a lay-off agreement with Kaiser behind our backs. They allowed Kaiser to terminate on-calls instead of laying them off with recall rights, allowed Kaiser to move employees within 45 miles of their worksite or face termination, and allowed Kaiser to reduce the health insurance benefits of the employees taking severance. SEIU did not let workers vote before they signed this deal with Kaiser. They even denied the deal existed until NUHW got a copy and shared it with workers.
Q: Is it true that we could end up with no union?
The three options on the ballot are NUHW, SEIU, and No Union, and if there’s no clear majority then there will be a run-off between the top two. The only way we’ll have no union is if a majority of us – 50% plus 1 of those who vote — decide we don’t want a union.
Q: How do we know NUHW will be better than SEIU?
Because we are NUHW. Nearly 100% of the Professional Chapter leadership and officers who have worked side by side with the professionals for the past 25+ years, all support NUHW. Our union is not about the name, it is the people, their vision and commitment. We elect our stewards, bargaining teams, and union officers, and we vote on every agreement with Kaiser. SEIU-UHW has no constitution to protect member’s rights—SEIU officials can agree to anything and they don’t have to let us vote. NUHW is led by the same healthcare workers and experienced negotiators who won current our contract.
Q: What about the rest of Kaiser’s 50,000 union members?
A majority of all Kaiser workers chose NUHW in March, but SEIU delayed their elections with the labor board. Kaiser workers in other units are circulating a petition to join us in NUHW next summer.
Q: Why did SEIU officials from Washington, D.C. take over our union and remove the people we elected?
SEIU ordered our elected leaders to force 65,000 long-term care workers that worked in Northern California into the Southern California Homecare Workers Union, Local 6434, without a vote.
We said that we would only support the move if: 1. The workers got to vote on what union they were part of, and 2. Kaiser professionals and other healthcare workers would always have a direct voice in negotiations with employers, with no backroom deals by SEIU.
SEIU would not accept those terms, and our union was put in trusteeship because our leaders refused to give up our right to vote and our right to negotiate with employers openly and transparently.
To cover up for their actions, SEIU has repeatedly claimed that our local union stole an ever-changing amount of money—sometimes $6 million, sometimes $3 million, and most recently $500,000. No money was stolen.
I met some of you for the first time in December 2004 at a rally with United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta, when she joined your call for St. Joseph Health System (SJHS) to negotiate ground rules for a free and fair election process. For the next four years, as an SEIU international organizer, I worked with you to build a powerful campaign that, by the fall of 2008, had convinced SJHS to sit down and negotiate.I suppose none of this is any great secret, except for the acknowledgement that it always was SEIU's intent to undermine any advancements that may accrue to the benefit of UHW while Sal Rosselli was still in charge. This puts to the lie all of SEIU's propaganda in the months leading up to the Marshall hearings when they would proclaim to everyone who would listen that it was not their intent to break up UHW, when it was perfectly clear that is absolutely what SEIU's intent was. Mr. Ross then goes on to describe SEIU's track record of late...
But in March 2009, after ten years, I decided to leave SEIU. The tipping point came when I learned in February that the international union had decided in August 2008 to withdraw support for your campaign. This was at a critical moment. We had conducted our week of action in Orange County in July of that year at the SJHS motherhouse, and won unprecedented national publicity.
How did I find out that SEIU had withdrawn support for you when you needed it most? Last February, SEIU leaders from Washington took over its California healthcare local, SEIU-UHW. The campaign was suspended. Days later, over 200 SRMH workers were informed of impending layoffs. I offered to fight the layoffs alongside an experienced organizer who had spent two years on the campaign. However, this organizer was told by the new SEIU-UHW leadership, installed by Andy Stern, that SRMH workers were no longer a priority.
Several days later, a national leader of SEIU told me that SEIU could probably get a free and fair election agreement from SJHS by that June. I was shocked by what he admitted next: that the international union made a decision in August 2008 no longer to support workers at SJHS or put pressure on the system, because they did not want you to have the opportunity to vote for a union led by Sal Rosselli. SEIU broke faith and trust with you by deserting you when you most relied on them. This misconduct seriously undermined the opportunity you had to win a fair election agreement with SJHS in the fall of 2008.
Later in February, the international union learned that many of you had decided to form a union with NUHW. SEIU made a last-ditch appeal that I lead a campaign to win your trust. Because of SEIU’s breach of faith, I could no longer represent SEIU in good conscience.
I was disappointed but not surprised when SEIU rejected the offer of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Monsignor Brenkle to mediate a fair election agreement, while NUHW accepted. Both SEIU and SJHS fear that if you have a free and fair election process – with no intimidation, retaliation, or negative campaigning – you will vote your conscience and select NUHW: the union whose leaders have stood by you for the past six years. SEIU’s actions have had the effect of encouraging SJHS to mount a very aggressive anti-union campaign.
SEIU has raised the issue of track record, so it is only fair to review its own recent track record. SEIU President Andy Stern is currently embroiled in costly, divisive battles on several fronts. He is waging a union-busting campaign against the union representing his own employees; he is fighting and raiding his former ally, UNITE HERE.But ask Andy, and he'll tell you he's always about looking out for the common worker, right? Mr. Ross then goes on to describe what happens to those who deviate from The Purple Script...
SEIU is bogged down in conflicts of its own making at a time when the labor movement has a once in a lifetime opportunity to make historic gains with the Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress. And now the labor movement is being tarnished, as numerous Stern protégés and appointees have been forced to resign amidst charges of rampant corruption.
Sadly, SEIU has chosen war with the former leaders of one of the most vibrant and successful healthcare unions in the country. Dissent has become equated with disloyalty.
SEIU – once the fastest growing union in the United States – has hit a wall. It has abandoned organizing campaigns at five major health systems around the country, after spending tens of millions of dollars, leaving pro-union activists vulnerable to management retaliation.
Across California, prominent local leaders are joining in support of NUHW, because they know this California-based and member-led union will fight the hardest for healthcare workers. Stern’s trustee for SEIU-UHW, Dave Regan, has failed in his attempt to threaten and coerce Local 2 UNITE HERE! President Mike Casey into withdrawing his support for NUHW.Mr. Ross then closes with a very clear and concise description of the choice that lays ahead for our (future) colleagues at SRMH...
When SEIU tried the same bullying tactics on John Burton, California Democratic Party Chair and legendary champion of working people, it backfired. Burton publicly supported the character, integrity and leadership of Sal Rosselli. But SEIU reached a new low when it resorted to physical violence against the Vice President of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) and other labor supporters of NUHW at a recent event in Los Angeles.
Not surprisingly, significant numbers of very talented staff have left SEIU. This represents a talent and idealism drain in the union that once was a beacon for idealistic young people.
The danger, of course, is that your co-workers become discouraged and vote for neither union. It has been 39 years since I went to Delano to work for Cesar Chavez. I helped organize the successful campaign to defeat the all-powerful Teamsters in the 1970s.Hopefully we can carry successfully this message from his pen to our actions out in the field.
Today you have an historic opportunity to cast your vote for NUHW, whose leaders have a long and proud track record of building a member driven union that has won voice in patient care, respect, and the highest benefits of any healthcare union west of the Mississippi. NUHW is organized and led by the people you know and trust. Workers in over 80 healthcare facilities and systems in California are in the process of joining NUHW because they want a union that they control themselves.
Keep your eyes on the prize. You can withstand SJHS’s anti-union campaign. You will overcome SEIU’s campaign of smear, fear and futility. By voting for NUHW, Memorial Employees will have the voice you need and deserve for yourselves and your patients. It will also send a powerful message to SJHS and SEIU and inspire workers in the rest of SJHS and in Catholic hospitals across this country.
Based on several questions received from members of the SEIU-UHW Kaiser Division Steward Council, the firm of Rothner, Segall, Greenstone and Leheny put together the following question-and-answer document regarding a potential decertification election among three units of Kaiser members. The information included is based on the National Labor Relations Act and precedential decisions of the National Labor Relations Board and the courts.We hope that this document can be helpful in answering many of the questions you may have. Please feel free to pass this information on to all KDSC members, other SEIU-UHW leaders, and your fellow members.
Q: What happens to our contract if we vote to change unions?
A: If you vote to change unions, your current SEIU-UHW collective bargaining agreement becomes null and void as of the date that the results are tallied. If there are objections to the election, your current collective bargaining agreement will become null and void as of the date that the election results are certified.
You forgot to mention the takeaways that Kaiser is imposing on union membership - with your tacit blessing and agreement - and notwithstanding any votes taken by the membership.
Q: How soon can we negotiate a new contract if we change unions?
A: That depends. If you change unions, your contract automatically terminates. While the employer would have a legal obligation to bargain with NUHW, there is no guarantee that this bargaining would result in a contract any time soon. In fact, you may not get a contract at all (on average, first-contract negotiations fail 44% of the time and only 38% succeed within one year ). Also, nothing can guarantee what the terms of a new contract would be. Given the ongoing economic crisis and takeaways Kaiser is imposing on non-union and management employees, if you give up guaranteed pay raises, healthcare and pensions by switching to NUHW, it is very possible you will not achieve the same level of wages and benefits.
See the lawyer's response to the first question above, and compare it to this answer - they are dimetrically opposite. Either the standing contract remains in place after Zombie UHW is kicked to the curb, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
Q: Why is NUHW telling people that if we change unions, NUHW will just take over our current contract, and everything is guaranteed to stay the same?
A: If no contract is in effect, the employer is required to maintain wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment in the prior contract until the parties bargain to impasse - that is, only until the parties have reached a stalemate and further bargaining over a new contract is futile. At that point, the employer is free to enforce its last offer, even if the terms of the offer are worse than those existing in the prior SEIU-UHW contract.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. The moment that NUHW is recognized by one of its bargaining units, CKPU will admit NUHW as a member - unless, of course, SEIU or Zombie UHW unilaterally attempts to block NUHW's entrance into the Coalition. However, given the fact that the NUHW leadership is the group that actually put together both the CKPU and the LMP group, I'm thinking that NUHW will be the ones joining the coalition and it will be SEIU who will be "going it alone."
Q: If we change unions, will we be able to take part in national negotiations with Kaiser management?
A: No. National negotiations are conducted by the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions (CKPU), which represents more than 100,000 workers nationwide. As a member of the CKPU, SEIU-UHW participates fully in these negotiations, and all SEIU-UHW Kaiser agreements (including your current contract) are based on the national agreement. NUHW is not a member of the CKPU, does not participate in these negotiations, and would not be a signatory to the national agreement. Instead, NUHW would have to go it alone and bargain directly with management for three separate agreements for fewer than 2,500 Kaiser workers spread out over almost 100 worksites. Also, the Labor Management Partnership between the CKPU and Kaiser is governed by the national agreement. Because NUHW is not a member of the CKPU, NUHW members are not eligible to participate in the LMP or its initiatives.
Pick one and go with it, shyster! Either the existing contract is in force upon a bargaining unit change, therefore bargained wage increases stay in place, or it isn't. There isn't going to be a unilateral declaration of impasse before bargaining starts with NUHW (as that is a sure-fire way to lose an arbitration), and because of the contract bar language such negotiations are not going to take place until less than eight months prior to expiry of the existing contract. Unless, of course, Zombie UHW tries to rush through an extension of the existing contract. Which would then be in force until it expires, no matter the bargaining unit. Or not. (Sorry, I just can't follow the Zombie UHW lawyer's logic path)
Q: If we change unions, could I lose the upcoming raises and performance payments that are scheduled in our SEIU-UHW contract?
A: Yes. Although the employer is required to maintain terms and conditions of employment while it bargains with the new union, if impasse is reached, it can enforce its last offer. Hence, if the parties reach impasse prior to a scheduled wage raise, and the employer's last offer does not include the wage raise, the once-guaranteed wage raise would disappear.
See above regarding impasse.
Q: Are my current health/retirement benefits guaranteed if we change unions?
A: No. Like wages, health and retirement benefits are terms and conditions of employment that an employer must maintain only until it bargains to impasse. Once impasse is reached, an employer may enforce its last offer, even if it contains terms and conditions which are worse than the previous contract.
Bull, and shit. In a three-way election, if there is no clear majority expressed, a run-off election is conducted 30 days hence with the top two vote-getters going forth. There is no way a "no union" vote is going to win at Kaiser, unless SEIU sides with KP management to achieve that end (see posts below regarding SRMH for more Zombie UHW background on that).
Q: Could we end up with no union?
A: Yes. In an election, the choices would be SEIU-UHW, no union, or NUHW. If neither union wins a majority vote, there will be no union at all. If no union wins, not only is your contract is null and void but your employer will be allowed to set wages and working conditions without bargaining with anyone. Additionally, all employees will be at-will, since there will be no grievance procedure or requirement that the employer have just cause to discipline or discharge an employee.
Oh joy, we're back to the "contract will disappear instantaneously" line. I really do wish they'd pick a position and stick with it.
Q: If we change unions, can we still appeal firings, layoffs, or other unfair employer actions to an independent arbitrator?
A: No. Arbitration would not be available to resolve disputes arising while no contract is in effect. SEIU-UHW could only pursue arbitration of grievances that arose under its contract before it became null and void.
Q: Why are SEIU organizers using scare tactics?Fear has NEVER been a good long-term motivator. It's too bad that a once-great union has tumbled to this.
A: Think about it. The SEIU organizers have little to rely on besides scare tactics. SEIU UHW-W is run by trustees who don’t even come from California
and have absolutely zero experience in bargaining with our employers.
The few contracts that they’ve negotiated are vastly inferior to contracts bargained by the old local. What kind of track record is that? Furthermore, virtually all of the trusted staff from the old local have quit their jobs because they want to be part of NUHW – a union of trusted leaders who have decades of experience and a proven track record of winning industry-leading contracts for healthcare workers.
Now, the average SEIU patron is either going to mumble something about "that was then this is now" or proclaim that SEIU has to save the poor workers at SRMH from the evil that is NUHW because, well, NUHW disagrees with SEIU.December 3, 2009Mr. Kevin A. Klockenga
President and Chief Executive Officer
St. Joseph Health System Sonoma County
Sent Via Email
Dear Mr. Klockenga,
In your letter of Oct. 5, 2009 to Catholic Scholars for Worker Justice you explained that “SRMH leadership was scheduled to meet with NUHW officials to attempt to reach mutually agreed-upon ground rules for a future election.” We in CSWJ rejoiced in this statement since it demonstrated a new openness on the part of SJHS to improve labor relations and it was the first concrete application of the joint USCCB, CHA, and labor union document, “Respecting the Just Rights of Workers: Guidance and Options for Catholic Healthcare and Unions.”
We have followed developments in this matter and are disappointed that SEIU refused to attend a meeting with SJHS and NUHW to decide upon ground rules for an election. We believe, however, that you still had a moral obligation to meet with NUHW since the interests of the workers should not be held hostage to one party who refuses to attend a meeting. Simply meeting with a union to discuss ground rules in no way constitutes an endorsement of that union by SJHS. In the name of the common good, we urge you to meet at the earliest possible moment with NUHW to discuss ground rules for the last two weeks of the campaign. SEIU should, of course, be invited but it they refuse to attend we urge you to schedule the meeting anyway.
In addition, we are deeply alarmed at reports that SJHS has reverted to an earlier form of behavior and is actively seeking to bust the union movement at Santa Rosa. It is a violation of Catholic Social Teaching on workers’ rights for an employer to demonstrate anti-union sentiments. The decision for or against a union is rooted in the natural right of free association and the employer may under no circumstances violate or denigrate this right through actions or conversations with workers that have a clear anti-union prejudice. Accordingly, we call upon Saint Joseph Health System to cease its anti-union campaign and to follow the norms that are set forth in Respecting the Just Rights of Workers: Guidance and Options for Catholic Healthcare and Unions.
Sincerely yours,
JOSEPH J. FAHEY
Chairperson, Catholic Scholars for Worker Justice
