62 pages of smoking gun goodness

Remember my earlier post about how the hammer was about to be dropped on the UHW camp? Well here it is folks, NUHW has the goods on SEIU's criminal and frequent misdoings in Fresno. Packed full of legal defenses of NUHW's claims against the Zombies, declarations by both NUHW staff and former Zombie staff members (whom implicated themselves in an attempt to come clean). The good stuff begins with declarations from a few IHSS workers who had the courage to step forward and describe the hell they went through because of the Zombies, and of course the smoking gun itself: "Winning in Fresno: Some Tips for Success" (last page of the lawsuit).

So first off is a Table-O-Contents, using the page numbers shown when viewing the documents as a PDF. A print out will not show the page numbers I have listed below. Exhibits 1-5 not in this document.

Section	Pages
Summary by NUHW	1-3
Response to the Zombies "position paper", proof of service	4-10,11
Exhibit 6: Defense of election results as seen from the Department of Industrial Relations, "...and the winner is:"	12, 13-14, 15
Exhibit 7: Signed Supplemental Declaration from NUHW Director of Long Term Care Division John Vellardita	16, 17-19
Exhibit 8: Signed declaration from Carlos Martinez, former Zombie staff member	20, 21-26
Exhibit 9: Signed declaration from Andriana Gomez, Fresno IHSS (homecare) worker	27, 28-29
Exhibit 10: Signed declaration from Sheri Davis, Fresno IHSS worker	30, 31-33
Exhibit 11: English declaration from Patricia Barbosa Rodriguez, Fresno IHSS worker	34, 35-37
Spanish to English translation certification from TransPerfect for Rodriguez	38
Rodriguez's signed original declaration in Spanish	39-42
Exhibit 12: Signed declaration from Mary Townsend, Fresno IHSS (homecare) worker	43, 44-46
Exhibit 13: English declaration from Irma Orozco Fresno IHSS (homecare) worker	47,48-49
Spanish to English translation certification from TransPerfect for Orozco	52
Orozco's original declaration in Spanish	53-55
Exhibit 14: Signed declaration from Richard O'Brien, SEIU staff from SEIU Healthcare PA (Pennsylvania)	56,57
Exhibit 15: Signed declaration of Alexandra Early, SEIU staff from the Fresno fight	58,59-60
SEIU's very incriminating handout: "Winning in Fresno: Some Tips for Success".	61-62

Whew! Ok, that's done so let us dig in to this pile of garbage and see what juicy nuggets of Zombie fear-mongering we can dig up.

It appears that all the reports on PerezStern and ¡Adios Andy! were right on the money. Was there ever any doubt in your mind?

In one of it's more desperate moments the Zombies tried to challenge the PERB's (Public Employees Relations Board our equivalent of the NLRB, the National Relations Board) "jurisdiction to resolve the allegations raised by NUHW". What the...? Huh? Isn't that like a criminal trying to convince a cop that she doesn't have the authority to arrest the criminal? Since when does SEIU get to the the PERB where and how to do it's job?

NUHW supports its reasoning with a quote from the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). Section 3309(c) states: "unfair practice charges made during an election shall be submitted to the Public Employee Relations Board for resolution." Hah! Take that you misquoting-for-your-own-gain criminals! Never fear: the Zombies will misquote again, keep reading!

Nearly a month after the election, the State Department of Industrial Relations sealed the fate of 10,000 fellow homecare workers in Fresno was sealed. I wish I knew at the time the Zombie had similar plans for Sonoma homecare workers.

Can you imagine how the ruse pulled on Mr. Roose is going to backfire on the Zombies?

Ok get ready to kick it up a notch. Below is Vellardita's (partial?) laundry list of complaints against SEIU. For those playing along at home mark this on your score card and check them off as further proof of SEIU bully-the-workers-party in Fresno sees the light of day. For the party hardy readers: drink 1 shot of the good stuff for each claim that proves to be true in the coming months. As soon as I know it will be here on the Red Revolt within hours.

But what good is a claim without substantial evidence to back it up? Enter the signed declaration of former (and quite remorseful) SEIU interloper and scab Carlos Martinez. While here in California, his boss Rebecca Mahlberg subtly  instructed him to work against the good of the homecare workers they were so desperate to "represent". Here Mahlberg shows what she is really made of, and it's not sugar and spice and everything nice!

Just words so far, right? It's illegal for an union employee or volunteer under their direction to handle a ballot or the envelope, period. Can words describe the reprehensible actions of the union we all pays dues to?

At one point in the campaign the Purple Plague needs someone for on the spot Spanish to English translations. Who does it? Martinez. What do they do after translation? Well, this is their first major assault on unrepresented workers so they weren't taking any chances on playing a fair game, so I'm sure you can figure out what happened to at least one translation.

Ok, so I found some words. Unmitigated arrogance, and brazen inhumanity to fellow man. So a college educated white woman sees fit to act like a child? I can't imagine what kind of social criminal works for SEIU when oppression like this happens. This appear to be a turning point in Martinez' understanding of the kind of morally corrupt outfit he is working for. I applaud him for trying to get the word out, but as you can see when your dues money goes to elect a president it's very hard to get anyone to investigate that same union.

 
Note the 3 federal government officials that didn't act on Martinez's pleas for help. How much abuse must the workers endure before somebody in power steps up?! Good thing we have some on our side! Go Red team!

Here are several clips of workers having their voting supervised and the accompanying harassment. To follow a  worker to the post office is both a sign of desperation and downright creepy, so is the supervised voting, initialing ballots, persuasion to change their vote, etc. For any vote any where it should be done alone, with help from any party on the ballot. SEIU doesn't see it this way as shown here.

From Fresno IHSS (homecare) worker Adriana Gomez's declaration (translated from Spanish):

From fellow Fresno homecare worker Sheri Davis.

Creepy, huh? Unfortunately for these workers SEIU "forgot" (see below) to tell them that benefits are negotiated by but not administered by the union. They go step further in the next quote. In it, they claim to be able to reduce a consumer's (patient's) hours as punishment for not voting for SEIU, yet I am certain that in every contract SEIU has negotiated in California for homecare providers (workers) in California including here in Sonoma county, the consumer's determines who to fire and hire. They are using the ignorance of the members against them. Is that union you'd vote for?

From Patricia Barbosa Rodriguez (translated from Spanish):

I've always believed that in a fight the loser always fights harder, and they are fighting pretty hard to keep what they should have lost.

The end is near folks: for both this entry and the Purple Plague.

Ok everybody the bullet is in the chamber now. Read this declaration from a former staff member to get an inside look on the trickery the Purple Plague pulled in Fresno.

From Alexandra Early, O'Brien's subordinate.

 Finally, here is the smoking gun. Enjoy!

 

 

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.