Tim Peck of the NLRB stated:
We sent letters to both contenders to see if the parties would resolve their ballot challenge differences voluntarily with a requirement that they reply on or before Dec. 29. There will be no certification of the election until ballot challenge issues are resolved.
which is must quicker than I expected, especially since the Zombies, with their disgraceful 13 votes didn't want to do the right thing for their organization, their dues paying members or anyone else involved in this slow-motion train wreck and just
throw in the towel after the beating the received Friday night.
The Zombie UHW folks are grasping at straws in their desperate attempt to convince health care workers that they are grinding out good contracts for their members. The only thing is, SEIU is putting out phony press releases written by themselves. The SEIU is taking credit for having bargained contracts at facilities they don't even represent.
ReplyDeleteAfter the stunning victory in Santa Rosa the SEIU scabs can expect another crushing defeat in southern California when the Kaiser Prossional workers get their chance to vote for the union of their choice.
NUHW RISING! UNITE HERE RISING!
SEIU DIMINISHING!
You say that UHW should "do the right thing" and "throw in the towel". But the issue is whether all votes should be counted. UHW is essentially saying that all votes should be counted, even though they can't win or even make it into a run-off. The hospital is saying that all votes should be counted, even though the best they can hope for is to have a run-off between NUHW and "no union". Only NUHW is saying that these votes should not be counted, even though the worst that could happen for them is that they will be in a run-off with "no union". Why is NUHW the only one arguing against counting all the votes? That doesn't seem very democratic. Or very confident about their strength if "no union" is the only other choice in a run-off.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 12:05 can you tell me where NUHW has argued against counting the contested votes? They need 6 more to get the all important absolute majority.
ReplyDeleteIn the mean time try to lay off the Purple Kool-Aid, it's messing up you ability to read and reason.
Anon @ 12:05's comment does raise raise the idea (at least in my mind) that management will seize the opportunity to divide the workers and sabotage a run off election. Clearly, the 263 no union voters had enough from all 3 parties; however, this time the Zombies will have to stay out and watch instead of union-bust as usual. Should the Zombies be caught helping management in any way there will be severe penalties from the NLRB. This might be the incentive they need to stop wasting my dues money on futile fights.
ReplyDeleteTo correct anon @ 12:05, the hospital is NOT saying that all votes should be counted, and neither is SEIU as far as anyone knows. What happened is that most of the disputed ballots are from people who tried to vote but were not on the eligibility list. The hospital seemed willing to resolve the disputes on election night, but the sore losers (SEIU - Stalling Everything Indefinitely as Usual) refused, so the matter got kicked to the NLRB bureaucrats to resolve.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 12:05 a.m. is just making things up (par for the course for Zombie scabs). NUHW and the employer were ready to RESOLVE the issues that evening. NUHW did not say the votes "should not be counted." NUHW said "let's resolve this right now." All that needed to happen was for the hospital to double-check their eligibility lists, all three parties and the board could have agreed on whether the voters were eligible or not, and it would have been over with. Sadly, SEIU decided to hold things up. Delay and lies seem to be their only weapons right now. They are now officially shameless union busters. The workers at SRMH are still being held hostage by SEIU, even though they've never even been members of SEIU.
ReplyDeleteAnon@12:05, SRMH employees are not worried about a runoff with the hospital at all. Because if it were to happen the strength and pressure of the community would be brought to bear on hospital management to agree to a fair election process without them being able to use their allies in SEIU as cover. Management's SEIU style of union busting would be stopped. As for all the votes being counted, we fully support that all legitimate votes be counted as agreed to by all three parties before the election took place. However, votes cast by anyone not eligible to vote should not and will not be counted per the NLRB regulations.
ReplyDeleteHave a Merry Christmas everyone... :)
Heh heh heh.... Not a good day to be Anon@12:05!
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone here know whether the situation was that NUHW and the hospital agreed on the accuracy of the eligibility list and only SEIU wanted proof? The statements that the hospital made about it not being clear that the union had a majority coupled with the quote from NUHW about the workers who cast the ballots not being on the list of eligible voters (Press Democrat report)makes it sound like there was more than just the unions and the hospital simply re-checking their eligibility lists involved. Also, there was something in some other story about the hospital supplying payroll information to resolve eligibility issues. Does anyone know HOW the hospital and NUHW proposed to resolve the challenges on election night?
ReplyDeleteThe quote you are looking for: "NUHW and management were prepared to resolve the status of 17 disputed votes immediately, but SEIU objected, delaying the likely official victory for NUHW." (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5361/upstart_union_deals_blow_to_seiu_raises_prospects_for_future_fights/)
ReplyDeleteSo as you can see NUHW and the hospital wanted to resolve the eligibility of the 17 challenged ballots that night but SEIU -- in it's infinite crankiness -- prevented this from happening.
No one outside of NLRB staff are allowed to handle the votes, unless under the direct supervision of NUHW, SEIU, No union ("Neither") voters and NLRB staff. NLRB staff opened the ballot boxes, opened the envelopes, announced the marking (NUHW, SEIU or Neither) and passed the ballot to the appropriate trio of NUHW/SEIU/Neither) charged with counting a given ballot marking. So really it's up to the NLRB to count the remaining votes once the eligible voters have been identified by the hospital.
I get that NUHW and the hospital say that they wanted to resolve the vote challenges on election night. I was just wondering how that would have gone down, exactly. That is, if it is true that the challenged voters were not on the eligible voter list, was the hospital (that supplied the list in the first place) in agreement with NUHW that the list was accurate and so the resolution would have been that they both agreed that the challenged votes were invalid and only SEIU wanted them to be proved invalid? If so, why was the hospital in the PD story so mealy-mouthed about whether NUHW won? If the hospital and NUHW both agree that the list was accurate and the challenged votes should not count, why didn't the hospital say that, or say something indicating its belief that NUHW won and that the challenges wouldn't affect anything, like NUHW said? Or, if payroll records are necessary for the hospital to resolve the question of eligibility, how could that question have been resolved on election night? Did the hospital have the payroll records with them? Was anyone here in the room when the ballots were counted and able to say exactly how the hospital and NUHW proposed to resolve the challenges on election night? It's lovely to think that the hospital was willing to concede its loss immediately. I guess that I'm having a little trouble believing that it's true.
ReplyDeleteThe remaining votes were suspect for the following reasons:
ReplyDeletedid the voter work enough hours in the week leading up to the vote?
was the voter in a management position during the voting period?
I can't answer for the PD article; I didn't write it.
The payroll records weren't readily available Friday night since it was well past 7PM and I'm sure the payroll staff had gone home for the weekend.
The hospital was not a party on the ticket so there is no way for it to concede defeat.
Thank you for your patience in attempting to answer my questions. It looks to me like the hospital was just saying it wanted to resolve the challenges on election night to look like good guys, knowing that the challenges couldn't really be resolved without the payroll records which they didn't have with them, and possibly knowing that SEIU would do the dirty work of refusing to resolve anything that night. But hopefully it won't matter in the end, anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt's my pleasure to share what I witnessed in the ballot counting room. It was a nerveracking and yet quite educating to watch the drama unfold. Part of what really angers me is Memorial management had the job of fighting against a union taken care of courtesy of the Zombies. No wonder so many people wanted to wash their hands of the unionization effort and voted Neither.
ReplyDeleteKeyser, sounds like you were close to the counting. Did the Board challenge the 17 cause they were not on the Excelsior List? If the challenges didn't come from the Board ...Where?
ReplyDeleteI was not seated at the table with the NLRB staff and vote counters but I was there the whole time furiously writing down details. I believe the NLRB employee meant Microsoft Excel list since at one point the number of voters was believed to be 676 but NUHW Organizer Peter Tappeiner pointed out that the first row in the spreadsheet was a header row and thus should not be counted. I do not know for sure where the list came from but I imagine the hospital would be the only place to find a credible list.
ReplyDelete