It's nearly here: a legitimate election for union representation at Memorial.

From all accounts SEIU will lose this election with most if not all votes going towards NUHW.

D. Ashley Furness of the North Bay Business Journal covers the story including SEIU filing a complaint with the NLRB for conflict of interest by NUHW’s attorney only to have it shot down October 23. Take that SEIU!

I suspect the Zombies will cry foul and block the vote count. I wonder how else SEIU will sabotage this election?

Judge Jon S. Tigar to Zombie UHW: "Quit yer bitchin!"

The Zombies learned the hard way that they can't have it both ways. They can't complain about NUHW's legal representation after firing the same law firm from Zombie UHW. Just like any other job in the world, when you are fired you don't have to listen to your former boss anymore. At issue here is the Zombies' claim of simultaneous representation, as in the Zombies claimed that Jon Siegel, a lawyer for NUHW was simultaneously representing both unions. In reality Siegel represented UHW-W before the trusteeship and like anyone with a soul, he continued his work after the trusteeship, for NUHW. Clearly that was a claimed intended to drain NUHW's legal resources, but it back fired in the following 4 glorious words:

"...plantiff's [UHW-W's] motion is denied" which is legal-ease for "afraid not!" What am I talking about? Read for yourself.

CDCAN: Counties warn of danger re: Nov. 1 cuts

COUNTIES WARN SCHWARZENEGGER ADMINISTRATION OF “CHAOS” IF IT MOVES FORWARD ON NEW IHSS WORKER REQUIREMENTS ON NOVEMBER 1

COUNTIES OFFICIALS SEND LETTERS TO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SAYING  INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETE OR TIMELY – CRITICIZE LACK OF TRANSLATED INFORMATION – WARN OF DANGER TO IHSS RECIPIENTS & POTENTIAL LAWSUITS

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 10/27/09  2:20 PM  (Pacific Time)  - Several counties – representing both urban and rural areas of the state – have sent official letters to the Schwarzenegger Administration warning of “chaos” for county workers and dire consequences for hundreds of thousands of people who receive and work in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program if new requirements passed in late July as part of the 2009-2010 revised State Budget, that included mandatory criminal background checks and fingerprinting of all IHSS workers (providers)  that are scheduled to go into effect November 1^st, are not delayed. 

The counties have responsibility to administer and implement the program locally under rules, guidelines and direction provided by the Department of Social Services.  The Department of Health Care Services also plays a role in the IHSS program because it oversees the state’s Medicaid program (called “Medi-Cal”) and nearly all of the IHSS program is Medicaid funded. 

Counties said that more direction and information, including translated materials is needed from the California Department of Social Services – the state agency within the Schwarzenegger Administration that oversees statewide the IHSS program that serves over 450,000 children and adults with disabilities – including developmental – and people with mental health needs, the blind and low income seniors, enabling them to live in their own homes with the help of hundreds of thousands of support workers, before implementation of the new requirements can move forward.  Some of the counties warned of the possibility of unsafe conditions for thousands of IHSS recipients and potential lawsuits from both IHSS recipients and workers (providers) if implementation was not delayed. 

Bernadette Lynch, chief of Senior and Adults Services in the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, in her letter to the Department of Social Services, wrote that Sacramento County was “…struggling to meet the November 1, 2009 start date as outlined by the state. In large part, this is due to delays in receiving necessary materials. [from the State] , saying that “…we have no translated materials with which to train the very diverse group of providers in Sacramento County…We do not have a list other than a draft of the criminal convictions that would bar an individual from seeking employment as a care provider….Other difficulties in implementation are caused by a lack of clarity in the requirements themselves.”  

She warned that the implementation problems “ …could result in recipients being left in unsafe situations or that a lack of providers may cause increased levels of institutional care.”

While recent federal court rulings in late June, and earlier this month  stopped two of the major budget reductions to the IHSS program that would have narrowed eligibility and reduced domestic and related services using a little known assessment scoring and ranking tool, and a reduction in state funding toward IHSS worker wages, other reductions – including the new requirements for background checks and fingerprinting of IHSS workers, elimination of the “share of cost buy-out” program – have either gone into effect or will go into effect November 1^st.

Those new requirements were originally proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger – and subsequently approved by the Legislature controlled by Democrats in late July, as part of the package of spending cuts and other measures to close what was then a over $23 billion deficit.  The Governor signed the budget bills in late July which also included major permanent cuts to a wide range of health and human services including those impacting Early Start, regional centers, senior programs, Medi-Cal optional benefits and other services, mental health, community colleges and other areas of the state budget. 

The new requirements for IHSS workers and also new requirements for IHSS recipients are contained in ABx4 19 (“x4” stands for 4^th special or extraordinary session) that contained provisions to combat fraud and abuse that Legislative Republicans and the Governor demanded be included as part of the budget agreement.  Some of those requirements were similar to legislation authored by State Sen. Abel Maldonado (Republican – Santa Maria).

Concerns Raised Focus of Budget Informational Hearing Wednesday

Those major concerns and problems being reported across the state on the implementation of budget reductions and policy changes to the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is the focus of a joint hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services, is scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, 2009, at 1:00 PM at the State Capitol in Room 4202 [see CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us for agenda and previous CDCAN Report for details]

The IHSS budget reductions and program changes – along with major cuts to other health and human service programs including regional centers, Medi-Cal and other areas of the state budget - were made this year as part of the effort by the Legislature and Governor to close a budget gap of over $40  billion in February – and over $23 billion in July. 

County Officials Raise Major Concerns – Warn of “Chaos” and Legal Problems

Mary Goblirsch, branch director of Aging and Adult Services of the Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services, after listing specific problems and concerns, wrote to the Department of Social Services that “…the manner in which implementation directions have been issued within the past month has created total chaos for IHSS recipients, providers , and county IHSS staff” and urged that the implementation date for the Provider Enrollment Requirements be delayed and that the Department of Social Services provide more clarification and specifics on outstanding issues.

Citing a criticism raised by several other counties of the confusion that they claim is caused by the lack of information from the State, Patrick Duterte, director of the Solano County Health and Social Services Department, writing to the California Department of Social Services said the department  “…has placed the County in an untenable position by requiring changes be made and providing incomplete and inadequate directions for implementation.  It is impossible for the County to provide responsible and thorough customer service to a critically important segment of our population under these circumstances.”

Echoing a concern raised by several other counties, Gary Andrews, deputy director of the Imperial County Department of Social Services, wrote of “serious concerns” that the county has with the November 1, 2009 implementation date of the IHSS worker (provider) requirements.  He cited that the state has not provided forms in languages other than English when “…our population (clients and providers) is approximately 75% Spanish speaking.  If we implement the use of these new forms on November 1, 2009, prior to having them translated into Spanish, 75% of our population will be signing statements under penalty of perjury that they may not completely understand.  This may be in violation of their civil rights and may undermine any prosecution effort in the future if fraud is committed.”

Linda Haugan, assistant county administrator for the Human Services Division of the County of San Bernardino,  concluded her letter to the Department of Social Services saying that the department “…has placed the County in an untenable position by requiring changes be made and providing incomplete and inadequate directions for implementation...the County is in urgent need of clarifications and answers regarding the unresolved issues”  and urged extension of the implementation date “…in view of the potential harm to IHSS customers”. 

Donna Clipperton, supervisor of the IHSS Public Authority of San Luis Obispo County, wrote to the Department of Social Services  that her county “…will not be able to implement the new provider enrollment mandates by the deadline,” because the county has not “…received all of the necessary directives that we need in order to proceed…have not been provided with all the materials needed for the mandated provider orientation, i.e., copies in Spanish,” and noted that “serious legal questions” regarding the new state requirements “have not been addressed”, saying there are conflicting statements on the new provider enrollment form that an individual with a record of “any” felony or a “serious” misdemeanor cannot be an IHSS worker.

Whew! Had enough yet? Stay tuned folks, this is only going to get lamer!

CDCAN: Joint Informational Hearing by Legislature October 28

Again message wasn't emailed to me until 12:07 today and I didn't read it until 3:30-ish. So, this is almost too late to act on but here it is. Comments that are underlined were underlined by me.

Implementation of IHSS Budget Reductions and Policy Changes Focus of Joint Informational Hearing By Legislature October 28^th

Joint Hearing by Assembly Budget Committee and Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services Will Hear From 4 Panels on Reported Widespread Problems and Concerns – No Public Testimony But Comment Cards and Letters Will Be Taken

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 10/27/09  11:20 AM  (Pacific Time)  - With major concerns and problems being reported across the state on the implementation of budget reductions and policy changes to the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program impacting over 450,000 children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and low income seniors, a joint hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services, is scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, 2009, at 1:00 PM at the State Capitol in Room 4202.   

The unusual joint hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee – chaired by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa) and the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services – chaired by State Sen. Mark Leno (Democrat – San Francisco), should be televised by Cal Channel or viewed on the Cal Channel website at www.calchannel.com [CDCAN will issue a full report immediately following the hearing]

The IHSS cuts and policy changes also impact hundreds of thousands of IHSS workers and the families of the IHSS recipients, counties, community based organizations and regional centers. 

The IHSS budget reductions and program changes – along with major cuts to other health and human service programs including regional centers, Medi-Cal and other areas of the state budget - were made this year as part of the effort by the Legislature and Governor to close a budget gap of over $40  billion in February – and over $23 billion in July. 

Hearing Comes After Federal Court Rulings Stopping Some Cuts

The joint committee hearing comes after recent federal court rulings in late June, and earlier this month that stopped two of the major budget reductions to the IHSS program that would have narrowed eligibility and reduced domestic and related services using a little known assessment scoring and ranking tool, and a reduction in state funding toward IHSS worker wages.  While the State is appealing both rulings to the US^th Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court required the Schwarzenegger Administration to comply and stop those cuts immediately.

Other Lawsuits Filed or Being Considered On IHSS Cuts

A state lawsuit filed in State Superior Court to stop the elimination of the IHSS “share of cost buy-out” program that was eliminated October 1 as part of the revised 2009-2010 State Budget passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in late July, is pending – though prospects for the state court to intervene at this stage does not appear good at this point.

Other lawsuits are being considered or are moving forward, though not yet filed, impacting the IHSS worker background checks, unannounced home visits by state agencies to homes of IHSS recipients and possibly fingerprinting requirements of both IHSS workers and recipients.    

Concerns Raised About November 1^st Implementation of Other IHSS Cuts

Other reductions – including new requirements for background checks and fingerprinting of IHSS workers, elimination of the “share of cost buy-out” program – have either gone into effect or will go into effect November 1^st.

Several counties have sent official letters to the Schwarzenegger Administration indicating major concerns and problems in trying to meet the November 1, 2009 deadline to implement new budget related requirements for IHSS workers (sometimes known as “providers”) and for persons receiving IHSS.  Some counties indicated that they would be unable to implement any of the new requirements until the Department of Social Services – the state agency within the Schwarzenegger Administration that oversees the IHSS program – sends out additional details that the counties say are critical in carrying out the new worker and recipient requirements. 

Other issues raised by advocacy groups and the counties included concerns regarding the various notices from the Department of Social Services containing instructions and guidelines to implement the various reductions and policy changes (contained in documents called “All County Letters” and “All County Information Notices”). 

A CDCAN Townhall Telemeeting held October 21 with representatives of various statewide and local advocacy groups and individuals attracted hundreds of people across the State that brought up reports of widespread confusion, panic and concerns regarding the IHSS budget reductions and program changes. [a complete audio recording of that townhall telemeeting is available for free on the CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us ]

Hearing Will Focus on Implementation Issues

Those issues – along with others related to the IHSS program will be heard in the October 28^th informational hearing by the Assembly Budget Committee.  No formal action or vote will be taken at that hearing. 

No public testimony – other than those coming from people from the various panels scheduled to provide information to the committee – will be taken.  However the committee will take comments from the general public via comment cards that will be available at the hearing, or through letters to the committee office. 

Assembly Budget Committee

Attention: Assemblymember Noreen Evans, Chair

State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services

Attention: Sen. Mark Leno, Chair

State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

The joint committee agenda for the hearing October 28^th is (for official copy of the agenda below and for background paper for this hearing, and copies of the county letters to the State, and background documents of this hearing, go to the CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us)

ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Oversight Hearing on Implementation of Recent Changes in the In-Home Supportive Services Program

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 – State Capitol Room 4202

AGENDA

I. Overview of Recent Program Changes in the In-Home Supportive Services Program IHSS

Ginni Bella, Legislative Analyst's Office

II. State Implementation Process and Outcomes

·         John Wagner, Director, California Department of Social Services (DSS)

·         Eva Lopez, Deputy Director, Adult Programs Division, DSS

III. County Concerns and Feedback on Capacity to Implement Changes

·         Frank Mecca, Executive Director, County Welfare Directors Association of California

·         Diane Kaljian, Adult and Aging Services Director, Sonoma County Human Services Department

IV. Reaction Panel and Impact of Implementation on Consumers

·         Deborah Doctor, Legislative Advocate, Disability Rights California [formerly Protection and Advocacy Inc or PAI]

·         Jovan Agee, Political & Legislative Director, United Domestic Workers of America / AFSCME

·         Laphonza Butler, Co-Trustee, Service Employees International Union – United Long Term Care Workers

·         Donna Calame, Executive Director, San Francisco IHSS Public Authority

Comment cards will be available and received at the hearing from members of the public who would like to submit written testimony.

Memorial Hospital union election update

Here are a few important updates about the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital organizing. I also added a timeline below explaining how the election has been delayed for the past 194 days.

RELIGIOUS LEADERS CALL ON SEIU-UHW TO AGREE TO FAIR ELECTION, STOP DELAYING
In a September 25 letter, SEIU-UHW stated their refusal to participate in fair election discussions with NUHW and St. Joseph Health System, even though workers and community members have fought for a fair election for years. Now, local and national religious leaders are calling on SEIU to come to the table: “We urge SEIU-UHW to enter into discussions with NUHW and SJHS to set ground rules for the union election at Memorial in a timely manner. Any further delay will only undermine the collective efforts of health care workers and the faith community who supports them.” Local religious leaders signing the letter include Msgr. John Brenkle, Father Angelito Peries, JoAnn Consiglieri, Rev. Chris Bell, Rev. Blythe Sawyer, Stephen Harper, Joe Silva, Deacon John Norris, and Father Ray Decker.

STATE COURT REJECTS LATEST DELAY TACTIC
In recent weeks, SEIU-UHW has refused to discuss a date for the union election under the pretext of a conflict of interest with NUHW’s attorney. On October 23, the Honorable Jon S. Tigar rejected SEIU-UHW’s argument. The only question remaining is whether SEIU-UHW will look for other means to delay the election. There is currently an NLRB hearing on the Memorial election scheduled for November 2, but there is no reason to wait for a hearing if SEIU-UHW agrees to the terms for election already agreed to by NUHW and SJHS.

PLEASE JOIN US FOR AN INFORMATIONAL EVENT ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6
In addition to updates about the Santa Rosa Memorial campaign, this event will touch on broader issues affecting the future of the labor movement in Sonoma County and beyond. The event will be chaired by Norman Solomon and speakers will include Sal Rosselli of NUHW, local union activist Marie White, and Mito Gonzales of Santa Rosa Memorial. The event is Friday, November 6, 7pm-9pm, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Hall, 3473 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa. For more info call (707) 962-9213.

TIMELINE: UNION ELECTION HELD HOSTAGE FOR 194 DAYS SINCE WORKERS FILED FOR THEIR ELECTION

January 27, 2009
SEIU places SEIU-UHW in trusteeship and pulls the plug on the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital campaign.

February to March, 2009
After SEIU-UHW shuts down their campaign website and office and fails to return calls, SRMH workers re-group and resume organizing with National Union of Healthcare Workers.

April 13, 2009
SRMH workers file their petition – signed by a majority – for a union election with the National Labor Relations Board. Typically, an election would be scheduled within 6 weeks of filing.

April to August, 2009
SEIU-UHW uses a legal maneuver to get the NLRB to block the election at SRMH.

September 1, 2009
The NLRB sets aside SEIU-UHW’s blocking charge and allows the union election at SRMH to proceed. SRMH management agrees to meet to discuss fair election ground rules.

September 16, 2009
After an absence of more than 7 months, SEIU-UHW files to intervene in the election. SRMH management postpones fair election discussions pending participation from SEIU-UHW.

September 23, 2009
SEIU-UHW refuses to proceed with a scheduled NLRB hearing citing an alleged conflict of interest with NUHW’s attorney. The NLRB postpones the hearing until October 19 (later delayed even further until November 2) thus delaying the election for at least several more weeks.

September 28, 2009
In a letter from Eliseo Medina, SEIU-UHW formally rejects any participation in fair election discussions, thus scuttling the process.

September 29, 2009
The North Bay Labor Council writes to the SEIU-UHW trustees asking them to respect the workers’ choice of NUHW and stop interfering in the SRMH union election.

October 7, 2009
A delegation of workers delivers a letter signed by 75 co-workers to SEIU officials in Santa Rosa telling them that they have no support and that they should stop the delays and pull out of the election.

October 10, 2009
Having failed in all their attempts to get support from workers, SEIU-UHW starts mailing a series of anti-NUHW leaflets to workers, running exactly the kind of anti-union campaign that workers have spent years trying to prevent management from running.

Zombie UHW pesters Memorial workers with another weak mailer

In what is sure to be one of many mailers from Zombie UHW aimed at re-winning the hearts and minds of Memorial workers, the Zombies mailed this bit of garbage. As you can see it uses the same tired and misleading arguments we've all heard since January 2009. Let's dissect this stinker, hold it up to the light and see it for what it really is: a message that came from the wrong union and came too late to make a difference for SEIU.

Who is NUHW?

The people who run NUHW were removed from office for misusing the members' dues money.

No, they were removed for not allowing the forced transfer of 65,000 homecare members from UHW to ULTCW. At the time UHW was a model local union and ULTCW was (and still is) reeling from their own corruption But the dues money used so far to negotiate sellout contracts (here, here and here) since the trusteeship began couldn't possibly be called misuse -- oh, no, no, no. Don't get me started on the fight for Fresno homecare workers, and the $10 million the Zombies spent there (at ~$3600+ per vote) to barely "win" an election, where SEIU claimed to have 5,000 -- an absolute majority of votes. Ugh, it makes me sick!

In January, NUHW leaders (then officers of SEIU-UHW) were found guilty by former U.S. Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall of misuing members' dues money and were removed from office. The very next day, they formed NUHW.

To me, this bit of crafty wording seems to imply that Secretary Marshall removed them from office, which is outside his authority reach or interest. Also, page 96 of Marshall's report states: " [...] I do not recommend imposing a trusteeship on these grounds at this time because these actions were merely symptoms of the basic underlying cause of the conflict between UHW and the International Union–the jurisdictional conflict over long-term care workers."

Once the leaders of the pre-trusteeship leaders of UHW realized that Rosselli's proclamation stating democracy "democracy dies in the darkness" had come true and UHW by extension and SEIU was a sinking ship, they headed for higher grounds.

What Did the NUHW Leaders Do Wrong? 

Since their removal from office, union members have found out that NUHW leaders:

• Transferred $3 million in members' dues money to a bogus non-profit for their own use.

 This should in no way be confused with the blatant misuse of dues money perpetrated by Tyrone Freeman one of SEIU International President Andy Stern's appointed (NOT elected) local leaders. Also, setting up a mechanism for defending itself from the tyranny of SEIU International can only considered wrong

• Stole thousands of dollars of union property and destroyed files needed to protect workers against management.

This is an unsubstantiated allegation. Assuming it happened you'd think it would have been extensively publicized.

• Left thousands of workers without union protection in the middle of the worst economic crisis of our lifetime by refusing to bargain more than 100 contracts and canceling extensions of dozens more.

Not like, say, the 50,000+ Kaiser Permanente members who had their futures and livelihoods sold down the river by Zombie UHW (as shown here, here and here) or the  4700+ Sonoma county homecare workers who had their fate sealed for the next 2 years.

What does the future hold for NUHW?

NUHW leaders will soon be going on trial in Federal Court.

Going to court does not mean a guaranteed guilty verdict.

In July, U.S district Judge William issued a preliminary injunction against NUHW leaders finding that they participated in a "broad-based scheme to take and destroy UHW property and information" contrary to the interests of the union members they once represented.

Who is saying the quoted phrase? It doesn't matter: one way it's an unsubstantiated allegation the other way it's a just nonsensical fear mongering.

Granted, in order to prevent the wholesale loss of faith and interest of its members worldwide SEIU has to
fight NUHW's advances but they could at least change their message to maintain appeal and relevance, unless of course they have nothing left to say.

When dealing with SEIU it's good to know we're not alone

Not a whole lot of explanation needed here folks, just watch and learn about how not only Sonoma county homecare workers but also the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors are horrified about SEIU's recent rigged  contract ratification. Normally, labor and management and laborers are opposed but here is a rare example of labor AND management telling the union it's actions and treatment of it's members is reprehensible.

CDCAN: Townhall Telemeeting on IHSS Budget Cuts, Oct 21 Wed 1 to 2:45 PM

Here's an except from CDCAN's (California Disability Community Action Network) latest email. Sorry about the short notice I just received the email an hour ago. If you can make the time, call tomorrow and let the State know how you feel about the Draconian cuts to IHSS consumers' (clients') hours as a means of balancing the State budget.

CALIFORNIA BUDGET CRISIS

CDCAN Townhall Telemeeting Wed at 1 PM

Focus on IHSS Budget Cuts – Lawsuit Update

Also This Week: Medi-Cal Optional Benefits Federal Lawsuit Filed By Medicaid Defense Fund Will Be Heard Oct 22 At 11 AM in SF Before 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 10/20/09  09:59 AM  (Pacific Time)  - In the wake of a federal court ruling yesterday that stopped major cuts to In-Home Supportive Services that used little known assessment tools as a means to narrow eligibility and reduce services, a CDCAN Townhall Telemeeting is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon (October 21) from 1:00 PM to 2:45 PM featuring representatives and advocates for people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors, and support workers to provide updates to that lawsuit, and also updates on other cuts and policy changes to IHSS that still remain. 

The free townhall telemeetings, since 2003,  have been a regular way for people who cannot easily leave their communities or homes due to health needs, supports, resources, transportation, to participate in public policymaking, to hear policymakers and others and to ask questions directly.  The townhall telemeetings can be accessed from any phone line, or by going to a participating local site that is dialing in. 

Depending on availability, someone from the legal team that represented IHSS recipients and workers in the lawsuit that stopped the IHSS budget reductions yesterday, may be on the townhall telemeeting to provide an update on the lawsuit.

CDCAN TOWNHALL TELEMEETING

OCTOBER 21, 2009 – WEDNESDAY  1:00 – 2:45 PM

TOLL FREE LINE:  877-551-8082   (no passcode)

 

Guest Speakers:

·         Lisa Barrows, Community Resource Coordinator, and Melanie Bazile, executive director -  STEP (Strategies To Empower People) a Sacramento based independent and supported living services organization

·         Deborah Doctor of Disability Rights California (formerly Protection and Advocacy Inc or PAI) and possibly someone from the legal team including Melinda Bird. 

·         Anne Guerra, executive director of the Nevada Sierra IHSS Public Authority (covers Nevada, Sierra and Plumas counties)

·         Janet Heinritz-Canterbury of the Los Angeles County Personal Assistance Services Council (IHSS Public Authority)

·         Christal Hopkins, disability advocate and IHSS recipient

·         Karen Keeslar, advocate and also representing United Domestic Workers, one of the unions representing IHSS workers

·         Debra Roth (or possibly Loretta Stevens), with SEIU, one of the unions representing IHSS workers

·         John Wilkins, disability rights advocate and IHSS recipient

In case there is any doubt about Zombie UHW's plans for long term care workers?

In case you are wondering if the Zombies still plan to move long term care workers (homecare and nursing home) from crumbling UHW to the decrepit, these fine people (as seen at the 2009 UHW convention) can show you! It appears that the the UHW Zombies have distributed a few "souvenir" shirts perhaps to be used as conversation pieces among the soon-ish to be effected members.

As you may recall one of the main reasons for this disastrous trusteeship (scroll down to #4) was the decision by the SEIU to move 65,000 LTC (long term care) members out of UHW and into the scandal-plagued ULTCW --  the United Long Term Care Workers, formerly known as Local 6434, and before that Local 434B.  How scandal plagued? Well, when it comes to SEIU locals that deserve to be trusteed, ULTCW takes the cake for misuse of dues money, $9 an hour for most of it's members (that's 121,813!), and all around bad leadership. And what of their former leader you ask? He tired a brief stint as a sports agent and now has moved on to his own blog, the Blueprint for Justice, which if you search for comments no one has said a thing about his "blueprint".

UPDATE: I checked the blog on Thanksgiving morning, no comments anywhere or new entries since October 10.

Zombie UHW doesn't know what it's telling people half the time. I remember talking to SEIU liar Rebecca Malberg, who was here in California from Massachusetts for the battle in Fresno, on the steps of the State capital during the budget hearings. After putting on my dumb-homecare-worker mask I asked her what UHW was going to do with homecare workers when this pesky trusteeship and battle with NUHW was over. Would we be reassigned to ULTCW? She said that was absolutely not the case, and then went on to tell me that was exactly what UHW was going to do, all in the same breath!

Cut in homecare funding still set for November 1

That's right folks, despite Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken's restraining order on Wednesday, October 14, cuts to homecare are expected to take affect on Sunday, November 1, 2009. Check out the coments section of the SacBee (Sacramento Bee) to see the scathing public contempt for the IT contractor that can't back out the changes in a timely manor.

Union vote at Santa Rosa at Memorial hospital

Listen to KRCB-FM's take on the union vote at Santa Rosa Memorial hospital. Pay close attention to the political theater of Shirlee Zane, Sonoma County Supervisor, 3rd District. She says all the right things. This will come in handy when I post some of her comments from the September 24, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting.

KSRO's "The Drive" hour dedicated to Santa Rosa Memorial workers

Hear from 2 Santa Rosa Memorial workers and 1 woefully under informed SEIU cheerleader about the struggle in organizing Sonoma County's only non-union hospital.

Homecare workers reject SEIU secret contract

After the ratification vote but before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (BoS) rubber stamped the fraudulent contract ratification, some UHW propaganda resistant homecare workers plead with the BoS to hold off their approval until a fair ratification was held.

Sadly, the BoS held fast to their assertion that they bargained a great contract. Although they were outraged at the actions of SEIU staff and the bargaining team members, they felt their hands were tied.

Sonoma County homecare workers sound off about about secret contract ratification

Here are the few Sonoma county homecare workers who won't let themselves be blindsided by SEIU's secretive bargaining. You can see what were up against!

 

Discussion: The National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) and the Future U.S. Labor

Come to a forum to learn and discuss the future of labor. Download a flier to print and distribute to fellow healthcare workers.

Friday, November 6, 7-9pm
Plumbing &; Pipe Fiting Industry Local Union 38 ("Plumbers Union Hall")
3473 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA95407
(707) 584-4815

Here's the link in the image above: Fund for Union Democracy

Homecare veteran speaks about the voting horror

Dozens of homecare providers are calling on Sonoma County Supervisors to investigate SEIU's reported strong-arm tactics in a recent contract ratification vote. I spoke with Arin Stevens; she's been a Sonoma County in-home supportive service provider for 22 years.  She explained not only the background in this story, but the intimidation she witnessed at the polls.

Santa Rosa Memorial veteran hospital employee speak of SEIU UHW West's utter failure in organizing

The North Bay Labor Council is now getting involved in the dispute over two labor unions. A letter was sent out to the trustees of SEIU-UHW asking them not to delay or obstruct efforts by workers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital to form a union with the National Union of Healthcare Workers or NUHW.  Nancy Timberlake works in the trauma unit at Santa Rosa Memorial and explains what's happened.

North Bay Business Journal: Health care unions clash

Read Ashley Furness' article of the North Bay Business Journal concerning the mounting tension at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, the only non-union hospital in Sonoma County. Read 'em and weep Zombie UHW!

Zombie UHW's anti-union mailer

After being asleep at the helm since their April filing with the NLRB, Zombie UHW has taken up fighting the workers choice in union representation at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital. In their latest efforts the Zombies have sent this mailer which lays out several  rather lame arguments.

Gather 'round the family/work/library computer y'all and I will dissect each of the arguments made by the Zombies.

SEIU-UHW strength get the results that hospital workers need in these rough economic times.

Except when you learn that 1,600 Kaiser workers who were laid off (as shown in this section) with the Zombie's full knowledge and consent, despite the Zombie's claim to the contrary (as seen here).

• NUHW has a history of dividing workers at a time when they need us most.
  

Clearly this is something SEIU would never do, unless its April 2008 and you are at the Labor Notes conference.

• Representing over 150,000 healthcare workers, SEIU-UHW is the strongest healthcare union

Not all of them are willing members:

1. 350 nursing home workers choose NUHW over SEIU
2. Workers win election at Doctor's San Pablo!
3. Caregivers at The Sequoias join National Union of Healthcare Workers

• NUHW has 0 members under contract.

So did SEIU when it first started organizing. Give NUHW a couple years and I'm sure UHW will be but a painful and distant memory for the 150,000 of us under corporate union rule.

• SEIU-UHW is the Kaiser union with nearly 50,000 members who set the standard for all other California hospitals.

By setting standards they mean offering massive “take-aways” like no training, no voting, etc.

• NUHW has no plan and little money and resources. Many of their staff have quit.

Indeed NUHW is working on a shoestring budget but NUHW has  already helped the homecare workers in San Francisco and Sacramento counties.

People quite their jobs all the time, this is not new.

• When Kaiser tried to lay off workers, thousands of SEIU-UHW members mobilized across the state. Over 1500 positions have already been protected.
  

“[h]ave already been protected”...sounds like a cover up to me! Also, the "mobilization across the state" was an overwhelming failure.

• NUHW leaders are going to trial soon in Federal Court.
  

You think SEIU would publicize this with the same zeal as their long-worn-out claim of theft of $3 million, but I can't find anything about an impending trial!

This is clearly a desperate move on SEIU's part and will likely fall on deaf ears. They've lost the hearts and minds of the Memorial workers twice:

1. first when they literally abandoned them right after the trusteeship and 
2. again when they filed charges with the NLRB thus further delaying their union representation.

Santa Rosa Memorial workers receive anti-union mailer from SEIU-UHW; workers ask SEIU-UHW to leave

Here's the latest from Steve Sidawi, volunteer organizer for NUHW about the struggle with SEIU at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (SRMH).

Workers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital are used to anti-union literature from their employer, but this is the first one they've received from SEIU-UHW. This starting arriving at workers' homes yesterday and today. It provides confirmation that SEIU-UHW will be running a totally negative campaign against workers' chosen union, NUHW.

The mailer comes two days after members of the worker organizing committee delivered an open letter to SEIU-UHW Trustee Dave Regan asking SEIU-UHW to withdraw from the election. The text of the worker letter, signed by 75 SRMH workers, follows:

AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVE REGAN, SEIU-UHW TRUSTEE

As members of the union organizing committee at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, we are appalled at SEIU-UHW’s last-minute interference in our union election. All of us have been working and sacrificing together to organize our union, and yes, it is our  union. You may disagree with the union we have chosen, but it is our decision to organize with National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW).

We filed for our election with NUHW back in April, and were forced to endure a five-month delay because of SEIU-UHW’s legal maneuvers. During that delay, nearly 200 of our coworkers were laid off, our pay was frozen and management has now made plans to take away our sick time. In this economy, workers at Memorial cannot afford to be without a union, but that is exactly what you have accomplished.

Your organizers showed up at our co-workers’ doors only after the NLRB finally allowed the election to go forward and your second attempt to stop our vote failed. The continued interference of SEIU-UHW organizers and lawyers is far worse than anything our management has done in recent memory. The NLRB may say you have a right to be on the ballot, but your presence in this election will only create confusion and division.

Last year, your union local in Ohio had scheduled an election for workers at Catholic Healthcare Partners. The California Nurses Association disrupted that election, like you are disrupting ours. In that election, the CNA used tactics to turn workers against their chosen union. You told the New York Times that the interference “is indistinguishable from that of the most vicious anti-union employers. It violates every principle of unionism. Real people are worse off today as a result of their behavior.” (New York Times, March 12, 2008).

Dave, like those workers in Ohio, we are real people too, and we are worse off because of your behavior. For too long, you and SEIU-UHW have actively prevented us from exercising our democratic right to vote for the union of our choice. So stop the house visits and stop the phone calls. It’s time for you to respect our decision and withdraw from the election at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital.

They're not alone: read the North Bay Labor Council's letter asking SEIU-UHW to respect the workers wishes and jump back off the election bandwagon.

Zombie UHW tips it's hand just a little bit more with its homecare contract summary

So now that the dust has settled and we're trapped in a mediocre-at-best contract, Zombie UHW has tipped it's hand just a little bit. I think by now no one is expecting Zombie UHW do anything in an above-board manner, be accountable to members or reveal anything that might be detrimental to members until after a contract has been slipped past members.

So imagine my surprise when I received this in the mail the other day. It's the same tentative agreement summary we were offered to help us make our voting decision, with a slight rewording and a bit more information only available after the slanted ratification. I urge you to read and decide for yourself just how slimy and sneaky the Zombies can be. The first two are the tentative agreement summary, the last two are the Contract summary. They are virtually identical save for some wording to address the passage of time, but look closely at the last page of the Contract summary.
Here's the tentative agreement summary, handed out before the vote count.

 

Compare this to the Contract summary, mailed to us after the ratification and after any chance of changing the contract for the benefit of homecare workers.

 

Notice how the tentative agreement had nothing of substance to say about the health benefits and now even in the Contract summary, it is still quite vague. SEIU was hiding something all along! Our dues money a work everyone!

The former and current contracts: time to compare, contrast and shudder in fear.

Get a cup of coffee or possibly a sedative and set aside at least an hour to scrutinize the difference between the contracts. If you print them out save a few trees and make double sides printed outs. Here are the source documents:

• Sonoma County Homecare Contract 2007-2009 (pre-trusteeship, open bargaining process, mail in vote for ratification, etc)
• Sonoma County Homecare Contract 2009-2011 (post-trusteeship, secretive bargaining process, in person vote for ratification, etc)

Here's a nearly complete summary of what's in the new contract. As you can see the Purple Plague had good reason to hide this pile of garbage!

Pre-trusteeship Contract	Post-trusteeship Contract
SECTION V: UNION RIGHTS
Section did not exist.	5.5 C. NEW PROVIDER ORIENTATIONS All Providers are required to complete an orientation in conformance with applicable State law. The flier handed out during the 3 days of closely supervised and coercive voting states that “all [emphasis added] Providers are required to complete an orientation” but our new contract adds “in conformance with applicable State law.” To add to the confusion the section is titled “NEW PROVIDER ORIENTATIONS”. For many this is akin to being required to take high school driver's education and training classes after 10 years of flawless truck driving. So what gives? Did SEIU omit “new” accidentally or on purpose? Ugh...why am I asking? Also, the State is requiring homecare Providers and Consumers to be fingerprinted.  If SEIU were on it's game during the 2009-2010 budget cycle this would surely have been struck down at the state level. But an all out war in Fresno for homecare workers and the $10 million of our dues money SEIU squandered to barely win had SEIU distracted from what it should have been doing: fighting for members instead of fighting with members!
Section did not exist. This seems fair but what if the Public Authority doesn't agree with the message, or we with their message?	5.7 MAILINGS TO PROVIDERS The Public Authority will include official Union notices in mailings to the bargaining unit from the Public Authority if the Union provides such notices to the Public Authority ten (10) days prior to the mailing date. The Union will reimburse any additional mailing costs to the Public Authority in the event that Union materials increase those costs. The Union will similarly accommodate the Public Authority in its mailings. Not mentioned in Tentative Agreement summary.
SECTION VII: WAGES AND OTHER COMPENSATION
7.1 WAGES
Section did not exist	B. Ninety (90) days prior to October 1, 2010, [July 3, 2010] the parties shall re-open negotiations regarding the subject of wages and benefits only. Looking at page 1 of the flier the Zombies handed to voters before the consultation and vote it mentions the above wage re-opener, but doesn't indicate why a re-opener would occur at that time in the contract. Could it be that October 1, 2010 is when the Recovery Act funded FMAP money runs out? This is extremely dangerous because is years past when the State wanted to cut homecare wages during a deficit year the battle to preserve wages was fought at the state level, but now the wage reduction is in an iron-clad contract and therefore not subject to discussion if (and very likely when) our wages drop. This seems like the Zombies way of sneaking an almost certain and devastating wage reduction past unsuspecting homecare members which is very easy to do when no one is allowed to view the contract.
SECTION VII: WAGES AND OTHER COMPENSATION
A. The Public Authority shall set aside Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) per year during each full fiscal year of this Agreement to provide On-Call Relief services.	7.3 A. ON-CALL RELIEF Contingent upon available funding, the Public Authority shall provide On-Call Relief services. To me “[c]ontingent upon available funding” sounds like on-call relief is about to become a casualty of the State's budget ax, but I'll leave it to you to interpret this bit of euphemistic language.
SECTION VIII: BENEFITS
8.1 HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE
8.1 A. 1. The Public Authority currently contracts with the Service Employees International Union Employees/Employers Dental and Medical Trust Fund to provide Kaiser Health and Enhanced Vision Care Insurance to eligible Providers. Under this plan, the co-pay for office visits is $15.00; the co-pay for brand name prescriptions is $20.00; and the co-pay for generic prescriptions is $10.00.	8.1 A. 1. The Public Authority currently contracts with the HealthCare Employees/Employers Dental and Medical Trust Fund to provide health and vision insurance to eligible Providers. In the event that either party proposes a change in the health insurance plan, the parties will meet and confer over the selection and implementation of a new plan. Not mentioned in Tentative Agreement summary. Why is SEIU changing who handles the trusts? More important: this seem like the decision to abandon Kaiser coverage for a yet to be named successor has already been made!
2. Effective May 1, 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter, the parties agree to provide health and dental insurance through the Kaiser Fidelity Health Plan. Effective May 1, 2008, the Provider Health Plan premium contribution shall increase from Seventeen Dollars and Fifty Cents($17.50) per month to Twenty Five Dollars ($25.00) per month.	2. Effective May 1, 2008, the parties agree to provide health and dental insurance and the Provider contribution shall be Twenty Five Dollars ($25.00) per month. The Co-pay amounts shall be in accordance with the Health Plan provisions.
3. Effective July 1, 2008, the Public Authority shall contribute no more than Sixty Cents (60¢) per hour to the total cost of providing a health/dental plan.	3. Effective May 1, 2008, the Public Authority shall contribute no more than Sixty Cents (60¢) per hour to the total cost of providing a health/dental plan. Whoa! May instead of July? Does anybody hear “Back in Time” by Huey Lewis and the News here? Hmm, well when you're under pressure from your Zombie boss to nail down a contract ASAP, certain details escape your attention.
8.4 A. The payment of insurance premiums shall be processed as follows:	8.4 A. Effective as soon as possible following Union ratification and Board approval of this MOU, the payment of insurance premiums shall be processed as follows: Not mentioned in Tentative Agreement summary.
8.4 PROCESSING AND PAYMENT OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS
A. 1. The Public Authority will forward the full amount (Public Authority and Provider share) of insurance premiums to the Service Employee International Union Employees/Employers Dental and Medical Trust Fund each month of this Agreement.	A.1. The Public Authority will forward the full amount (Public Authority and Provider share) of insurance premiums to the Healthcare Employees/Employers Dental and Medical Trust Fund each month of this Agreement. Not mentioned in Tentative Agreement summary. Again there is change in the way the premium payments are being handled. Why?
3. Once each month, the Public Authority shall forward to the Union a listing of the Providers who have qualified for benefits and for whom payroll deductions or direct payments shall be processed. The Union shall forward the payroll deduction information to the State Controller’s Office, collect individual payments and, shall forward the full amount deducted/collected to the Public Authority once each month. The specific processing procedures to be followed by the Union and the Public Authority are contained in Appendix A of this Agreement.	3. Once each month, the Trust shall forward to the Union a listing of the Providers who have qualified for benefits and for whom payroll deductions or direct payments shall be processed. The Union shall forward the payroll deduction information to the State Controller’s Office, collect individual payments and, shall forward the full amount deducted/collected to the Trust once each month. Why?
8.4A 4. If payroll deduction services become available to the Public Authority during the term of this Agreement, the Public Authority and the Union shall meet to reevaluate these processing procedures. Modifications shall be by mutual agreement only.	Deleted. Direct deposit has been available on a statewide basis since 2008 for all union represented homecare workers. If you're interested, print the following form to start direct deposit to your checking or savings account: Direct Deposit Application. I was unable to find the same form on the UHW website.
SECTION IX: REGISTRY
9.1 B. Registry services will include an on-call relief service to provide emergency relief and to provide short-term temporary respite replacement for Providers.	9.1 B. Contingent upon available funding, Registry Services will include an on-call relief service to provide emergency relief and to provide short-term temporary respite replacement for Providers. Not mentioned in Tentative Agreement summary. Grrrr! There's that slippery wording the bargaining team members were taken in with.
SECTION XI: HEALTH AND SAFETY
11.1 The IHSS Public Authority will make available standard gloves (including non-latex gloves), masks and disinfectant hand wipes at no charge to Providers and consumers who request the supplies	11.1 Contingent upon available funding, the IHSS Public Authority will make available standard gloves (including non-latex gloves), masks and disinfectant hand wipes at no charge to Providers and consumers who request the supplies. Stock up now on gloves and such, folks...while you still can!
SECTION XIV: FULL UNDERSTANDING, SAVINGS CLAUSE, STATE MANDATES, TERM
Section did not exist.	14.3 STATE MANDATED CHANGES In the event the State makes changes to the terms and conditions affecting the employment of Providers, the parties will meet and confer over the implementation of such changes. The parties will complete the meet and confer process no later than thirty (30) days following the effective date of the State-mandated policy or provisions.