Community support for Memorial continues... (part 3)

Who can figure out what the Press Democrat will print, especially when it's letters to the editor. It seems to me half the time I glance at the paper on the way out of the grocery store I see the median price of homes in Sonoma county as the above-the-fold story. We have some real news here and they can barely get it together to print a few letters to the editor. Recently they published a little and none too well researched article about the hospital's allegations of misconduct by NUHW and Labor Board agents itself. Seriously folks, Memorial management backed out of 6 of the 10 objections they submitted, not the NLRB, but somehow this is not newsworthy. Anyway, here's what little coverage it did get and better yet a couple letters to the editor that don't pull any punches.

 

Too bad the PD editor can't be bothered with presenting the voices of the community, as shown below.

Dear Editor:

I was shocked at the spare and biased article regarding the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Union elections.  It announced this Monday's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearing to address hospital management's complaints that the union which employees have been STRUGGLING TO BRING TO MEMORIAL FOR FIVE YEARS clearly won.  Managements captive audience meetings to discourage workers from voting pro union failed.  MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent by the "intervening" union, SEIU, failed to split the pro union ticket.  Out of 600+ eligible votes, SEIU got 13 even though they had filled the Petaluma Sheraton Hotel with paid "union organizers" brought in from all over the country.

Now management has bought time in order to deteriorate working conditions.  This is in preparations for the up coming dreaded legitimately won labor negotiations.  Their lawyers' tactics appear to be "Throw any allegations you can think of at the union.  Something is bound to stick."  But those I consider Memorial managements' partners in crime, SEIU, would not agree to ANY rules of conduct prior to the election.  NUHW fiercely tried to come to some sort of decent arrangement with management. But thanks to intervening Johny-come-lately union SEIU, no rules of conduct could be had.

The complaint that NUHW supporters were electioneering by wearing emblems, t-shirts, buttons and the like is particularly amusing to me.  Memorial is a Catholic hospital.  Some of the clergy were wearing NUHW buttons and such.  At least one of them was a Monsignor.  An open letter of support for Memorial Hospital's employees labor union organizing from Catholic Academics is on file.  Why was none of this information included in the article?

I was there the night of the vote count.  It was going to be held in a large conference room in the main hospital building.  At the last minute, perhaps because too many community people (like me) showed up, it was moved to a small trailer across the street.  Greeting us at the door was a security guard and the hospital's lawyer.  NUHW's lawyer had to ARGUE his way in to observe the count.  NLRB reps witnessed this nonsense.  We Memorial Hospital Employees' supporters deferred entry to employees, but even some of them were turned away.  This is clearly a case of the pot (management) calling the kettle (NUHW) black.  

Why do I care???  Because I look forward to the day we have an election in Sonoma County IHSS so we can throw the SEIU bums out.   They stripped us of our leadership, colluded with the governor to trash our contracts, harass us workers, and are talking of raising our union dues to boot.  I don't want to give them one red cent, let alone a raise.  They give unionizing a very very bad name.  I want my NUHW leadership back.  It's a union I do believe in.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Elsa Stevens

Here's another.

Dear Editor;

I am writing in disbelief of Bleys Rose's "Hearing Set for Memorial Workers", February 6.

First of all, why was there no pro-union comments from the SRMH workers?  A hearing is really unnecessary and could be avoided due to the following facts:

 Hospital management filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board,(NLRB), which have no significance. They had confirmed that the majority of employees who voted, did so to form a union with NUHW.  However, weeks before and up to the election voting day, SRMH Management had meetings to try to persuade workers to vote against a union, and refused to comply with the Fair Election Oversight Commission, (FEOC), who are community members, whose role was and is to defend the employee's right to understand about forming a union in an workplace that would be null of intimidation, misinformation and pressure tactics., as well as helping set ground rules for the election.  Instead, management held anti-union meetings, with one-sided misleading information on strikes, bargaining, and dues.,further creating undue pressure and stress on their employees prior to voting, etc.

They now need in all good conscience to finally respect the worker's decision and begin to bargain in good faith without further delay, and respect their employee's final decision to form a union with NUHW...

Management and St. Joseph Health System is going against their own "principles" of dignity, service, excellence and justice by contradicting themselves, having promised that: "If workers held a secret ballot election through the NLRB, they would stand steadfast by their decision."  This history making vote and victory by SRMH workers should be celebrated !

I and other elected officials as well as community leaders believe that SRMH Management needs to withdraw the remaining objections and end this unnecessary conflict so that a fair contract can benefit everyone.

Andria Callas