Huerta/Medina split just as lame as NUHW/Zombie split

The battle for the hearts and minds of UHW members, the civil war between two very different ways of thinking about how a union ought to be run has sparked a similarly bitter stand off between former peers in UFW the United Farm Workers. Dolores Huerta a co-founder of UFW (along with César Chávez) and Medina used to fight side by side, but now Medina with the backing of the nation's most corrupt union local SEIU UHW is resorting to calling the police to have Huerta arrested for merely talking to pro-NUHW workers. Their efforts to suppress Huerta failed miserably. Read more about this at BeyondChron. My thanks to Mike Wilzoch for speaking out yet again. It's good to have some inside perspective on this unfolding side drama. For even more background on Mike's views on UHW read his letters to the editor here, here, here and here.

When great local unions go bad

(As per Perez Stern's direction in his Friday, March 26 entry here are the key terms in today's blog entry, and its supporting works: Huffington Post, BeyondChron, Sal Rosselli, John Borsos, Shirley Nelson, Carl Finamore, Andy Stern, SEIU, NUHW, UHW, Judge Alsup, $25 million in damages, lump sum payout pension, Alameda Hospital, Eliseo Medina, Mary Kay Henry, Tyrone Freeman and Leon Chow.) Now, on with the show (blog)!

* * *

If occurs to me that some of my readers may be outside of the healthcare/NUHW/SEIU realm of understanding and therefore only vaguely aware of SEIU's lawsuit against the 26 union reformers now the leadership of NUHW. So I found a couple of articles that give a good summary of the trial; one from NUHW supporter perspective and one that gives an outside looking in perspective. Both are well written and will sum up this crucial trial for union democracy.

First, NUHW member and caregiver at Kaiser Redwood City Hospital Shirley Nelson sounds off with this bit about the absurdity of the Zombies attacks and why they are really suing the vanguards of union democracy.

Second is Carl Finamore's article on BeyondChron. It explains what happens when international union leadership runs roughshod over the local union's elected leaders, to the dismay of the electing members.

Is Zombie Trustee Eleiso Medina still "working" at UHW?

Unless I have the wrong email address I think the bounced email message below shows Zombie Trustee Eleiso Medina is no where to be found. It appears the email address scheme used at UHW -- first initial followed by last name followed by seiu-uhw.org when applied to Zombie Trustee Medina -- is routinely kicked back. One Zombie trustee down, one to go!

Emphasis added but you get the idea.

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

    (reason: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to smtp18.msoutlookonline.net.:

>>> DATA

<<< 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table
550 5.1.1 ... User unknown
<<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients

Reporting-MTA: dns; a.mail.sonic.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; 76-191-205-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net
Arrival-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:58:00 -0800

Final-Recipient: RFC822; emedina@seiu-uhw.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; smtp18.msoutlookonline.net
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:58:00 -0800

When SEIU claims ignorance, don't believe them!

Arin Stevens, a Sonoma county homecare worker of 22 years, wrote the following email to Shareefah "Reefah" Joseph, field representative for Sonoma County IHSS providers; Gustavo Corral, her supervisor; Leon Chow, Director of Homecare and UHW trustees Dave Regan and Eliseo Medina.

Notice how only Gustavo answers instead of Shareffah and Dave, Leon and Eliseo never bother to reply. Also notice the evasive and patronizing response from Gustavo.

This is Arin's first email. I won't sum it up as it speaks for itself.

From: heyarin heyarin@sonic.net
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:34:14 -0700
To: Shareefah Joseph sjoseph@seiu-uhw.org, Gustavo Corral
gcorral@seiu-uhw.org, "L. Chow" lchow@seiu-uhw.org, "E. Medina"
emedina@seiu-uhw.org, "D. Regan" dregan@seiu-uhw.org
Conversation: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote
Subject: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote

Dear Ms. Joseph,

I understand from talking with another homecare worker today that SEIU UHW intends to bar members from the upcoming contract ratification vote if they, like myself, have exercised our rights by signing petitions to decertify SEIU. In addition, members have been denied copies of the tentative agreement to study before the vote and we still haven't been informed if we're being switched from our Kaiser health coverage to a United Healthcare plan. Members receiving on-going medical treatment or who are scheduled for surgery are very concerned about life threatening interruptions in their care and about finding a doctor with an open practice on short notice.

You have stated that the contract ratification vote will take place at three separate meetings instead of by a mailed ballot. Requiring homecare workers to attend meetings in order to be informed about the TA [tentative agreement] and to vote on it disenfranchises many of our 3000 members. It's especially hard on those who must travel in from outlying areas and workers who cannot leave their IHSS clients until they find a qualified substitute. Mailing postcards this week about next week's meetings doesn't give us enough time to make arrangements to participate and does not constitute adequate notice.

We worked very hard to bring in a union and when I served on the first bargaining committee we kept members regularly apprised of our progress toward that contract. The TA was available to all and our ratification votewas carried out by mail-in ballots as have all subsequent votes therefore I am requesting on behalf of all Sonoma County IHSS workers that SEIU observe its past practices in this county and mail out ballots for contract ratification and to make available to all workers requesting one a complete copy of the tentative agreement with the county for our bargaining unit by the close of the business day tomorrow, Sept. 16th, 2009. To do any less confirms that SEIU is hiding a substandard agreement from us.


Yours truly,

Arin Stevens

Sonoma County IHSS worker

Next up is Gustavo's response.

From: Gustavo Corral gcorral@seiu-uhw.org
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:52:43 -0700
To: heyarin heyarin@sonic.net, Shareefah Joseph sjoseph@seiu-uhw.org,
Leon Chow lchow@seiu-uhw.org, "E. Medina" emedina@seiu-uhw.org, Dave
Regan dregan@seiu-uhw.org
Cc: Gustavo Corral gcorral@seiu-uhw.org
Conversation: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote
Subject: RE: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote

Hello Arin,

First, I hope you and Caterine are doing well. Second, I apologize for interjecting on your letter to Reefah. However, since you included me in this email and since I've been part of the entire bargaining process in Sonoma I feel the responsibility to respond and clarify some of your concerns.

As you may or may not know, before beginning negotiations, members of the bargaining team were elected at different membership meetings held throughout Sonoma County. We surveyed all Sonoma homecare providers through a mail-in survey on the top priorities the members wanted the bargaining team to bargain for.

The bargaining team members who were elected have been participating consistently throughout the process, including counting and tallying the surveys. As a result, they knew what the top priorities of the membership were after finishing the count, which created a negotiation platform for the team.

In addition, the bargaining team decided to hold this ratification differently because our contract expires on September 30 and we would not have had enough time to ratify it by mail. Thus, Sonoma members would have been left without a contract. Given the financial crisis that the State and County are facing these days, if Sonoma members had been left without a contract, the members would have been vulnerable for some drastic cuts. It seemed like the county intended to make drastic cuts because before negotiations began, the county sent all homecare workers a notice announcing a wage cut (you may have received this notice as well).

The bargaining team is a very coherent and cohesive group of members working very diligently and looking after the entire membership, not just a few individuals, sometimes sacrificing personal benefit on the decisions they've made.

All homecare members in good standing with the union in Sonoma County including you if that it's the case, are encouraged to attend and vote at any of the three locations: South, Central, and North Sonoma County. You should be getting a notice in the mail soon.

Lastly, I want to say that I have always respected and appreciated your contributions to the union as you were active in the past. The bargaining team needs your support to ratify this contract just like you needed them years ago when you were a bargaining team member. They've done a great job, and I'm sure any of them will gladly explain to you the TA we have reached with the Sonoma PA.

Take care,

Gustavo Corral
Homecare Division
SEIU-UHW
PH 415-503-5704
Fax 415-563-9914
www.seiu-uhw.org

Arin takes another whack at it.

From: heyarin heyarin@sonic.net
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:20:27 -0700
To: Gustavo Corral gcorral@seiu-uhw.org
Cc: Shareefah Joseph sjoseph@seiu-uhw.org, "L. Chow" lchow@seiu-uhw.org,
"E. Medina" emedina@seiu-uhw.org, "D. Regan" dregan@seiu-uhw.org
Conversation: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote
Subject: Re: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote

Hello Gustavo,

I appreciate your timely response to my concerns and I also hope you and your family are well. Your reply raises more questions and concerns regarding the contract negotiations and ratification process in Sonoma County.

I was not notified by mail, email or phone message of any meetings to elect a bargaining team in my area and after calling several other members in other parts of the county I found only one who received notification. Everyone did receive the bargaining survey and most of us returned it. When did these meetings occur? What types of notices went out and why were some members notified and not others? How can the bargaining team accurately reflect the membership of our bargaining unit when not all members were notified of an opportunity to participate?

The contract's expiration date was common knowledge so I am wondering why bargaining did not begin sooner? It's normal to file for an extension of the contract to protect members while bargaining continues so was the team ever informed of this practice?

As to the bargaining team making the decision to hold meetings instead of a mail-in ballot to ratify the contract: why have they and SEIU staff chosen to disenfranchise so many members? Are they so unaware of the difficult conditions for many workers and their clients that they would deliberately sacrifice these members' voices in order to rush through a contract?

I've spoken to two members of your bargaining team who either can't and/or won't answer questions about the health care plan changes and the wage reopener. Who on the team truly understands these issues? Would you provide their contact information? And why are complete copies of the entire contract being withheld from members? Many locals post their TAs on-line and make paper copies available so why the secrecy around our TA? And, again, why the deviation from past contract ratification practices which gave every member the opportunity to vote?

Another concern I have with these ratification meetings is the format. Who is running them? Can we bring our consumers? Will civility guide the proceedings or will those with questions and concerns be shouted down or booed or ignored? How will we actually vote? Paper ballots? Show of hands? Voice vote? How will the votes be tallied? How will the results be announced? Will an independent observer verify the results?

Once again I'm requesting a complete copy of our proposed contract to be available today to members for study before the vote and asking that SEIU honor its own past practices and return to a mail-in ballot. Homecare workers should not be forced to travel long distances, travel at their own expense, pay for substitute caregivers or give up working hours so we can vote. This type of disenfranchisement and discrimination in civil elections would today never go unchallenged so why does SEIU treat homecare members this way? We deserve the right to vote privately and without coercion or intimidation or undue burdens of travel and expense. If you and the team have truly bargained a good contract then it will withstand examination and a vote by all members not just the minority that can attend meetings. I look forward to your response to these questions and concerns.

Yours truly,

Arin Stevens

Sonoma County IHSS Provider

And finally Gustavo writes back but says nothing.

From: Gustavo Corral gcorral@seiu-uhw.org
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:22 -0700
To: heyarin heyarin@sonic.net
Cc: Shareefah Joseph sjoseph@seiu-uhw.org, Leon Chow lchow@seiu-uhw.org,
"E. Medina" emedina@seiu-uhw.org, Dave Regan dregan@seiu-uhw.org
Conversation: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote
Subject: RE: Sonoma Co. IHSS contract and vote

Hello Arin,

In response to your email, as I stated before all members in good standing
will be eligible to vote to ratify the Sonoma IHSS agreement. Good standing
means that as of the last paid period workers have paid their union dues and
have remained members of SEIU UHW and are IHSS providers in Sonoma County.
Again, we hope to see you there. By now you should have gotten the notice.

Thanks,

Gustavo Corral
Homecare Division
SEIU-UHW
PH 415-503-5704
Fax 415-563-9914
www.seiu-uhw.org

So as you can see Arin asks Gustavo, a 10 year veteran of Local 250 turned UHW then Zombie UHW, many questions but gets few answers. And some of those questions receive radically different answers if you ask Gustavo in person.