More drivel from Debra Miller

I don't think anyone really cares or believes in what Memorial VP of Worker Obfuscation (previously known as Human Resources) has to say about the letter to the editor published Wednesday, but here it is in case you're stuck at work with nothing better to do. Notice the lack of any attack on SEIU. Hmmm I wonder why that is?

Memorial management to workers: We honor your choice...

..so long as you don't choose NUHW. So much for their commitment to honor the choice of the workers.
 
As you can see below Memorial management as taken on the duty of continuing the disturbing trend started by the Zombies: blame everyone else for your own failings. Courtesy of a fearless employee I have received a copy of the complaint from the hospital to the NLRB. We all know Memorial management has a long and varied history of union-busting; even so, this weak listing of complaints disgusts me and I wonder how long it will take for "NUHW and it agents and/or third parties" to put management in its place.

First off is management's opening volley. Everybody it's time to find an alibi because we're all implicated is this very wide casting of the net for the blame game.

In the matter of the Petition of National Union of Healthcare Workers (Petitioner), Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers--West (Intervenor) and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (Employer)

Case No. 20-RC-18241

Employer's Objections to Conduct Affecting the Election

Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (the "Employer" or the "the Hospital") hereby files its objections to the Election held in the above captioned matter and requests that the Regional Director set aside the election because of conduct by the National Union of Healthcare Workers ("NUHW") and its agents and/or third parties, and because of conduct by Board agents which affected the election and prevented the maintenance of the laboratory conditions necessary to allow employees to vote in an atmosphere free from coercion and intimidation.

NUHW and it agents and/or third parties engaged in conduct, made statements and published material that interfered with, intended to prevent, the free expression of the employees choice, thus preventing employees from exercising their choice free of coercion and intimidation. In addition conduct by Board agents interfered with, intended to prevent, the free expression of the employees choice.

You'll notice not one word is mentioned about SEIU which was management's favored union. This seems odd given the reign of terror and rich history of very public screw-ups the Zombies have displayed statewide since the trusteeship.

1. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties repeatedly engaged in electioneering at or near the polling place on election days and during periods when the polls were open. In addition, such conduct breached an agreement entered into by the parties governing election day conduct.

Well this is an election and electioneering is allowed so long as nothing new is brought up in the 24 hours preceding the election. Can management offer any evidence the Zombies weren't allowed to electioneer at the hospital? Sure it may be hard to hold back 400+ staffers all at once but I'm sure they are easy to spot given their hideously-colored shirts.

2. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties engaged in campaign speeches within the period commencing twenty four hours before the opening of the polls.

Oh yeah, where? If not at the hospital and, again, if nothing new is brought up then this complaint has no merit!

3. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties engaged in surveillance and interrogation of employees attempting to exercise their Section 7 rights, including, among other things, videotaping employees attempting to attend employer-sponsored meetings, and videotaping employees attending such meetings, thereby creating a general atmosphere of confusion and fear of reprisal among voting employees.

I wonder what evidence they have about "NUHW and it agents and/or third parties" videotaping employees. Aren't video cameras using DVDs or memory cards by now. Way to proofread your own complaints!

4. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties restrained and/or prevented employees from exercising their Section 7 rights by massing outside hospital meeting rooms where the employer was attempting to hold voluntary meeting to inform employees on issues presented by the election and/or obstructing entrance to and exit from such meetings.

I can't speak to how NUHW behaved outside the meeting room but given their smaller numbers and generally polite demeanor as a group and individually I can't imagine they wanted to cause "confusion and coercion" in the minds of the very folks they have tried to help build a strong unified voice. Again, I wonder what evidence they have to offer.

5. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties issued statements and published videos creating a general atmosphere of confusion and fear of reprisal among voting employees.

I reviewed the videos on the NUHW website and found nothing even remotely coercing, intimidating or confusing. I can't know and therefore can't review every third part video recording, but if their complaint is about published videos on Empire Report (scroll down) then I stand by the comment I made in the previous sentence.

6. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties made statements and published videos which improperly suggested to voting employees that an organization entitled the "Fair Election Oversight Commission" (The "Commission") had right and standing to monitor pre-election conduct, and that, prior to polling, the Employer and Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West ("SEIU") had each violated rules governing NLRB elections. By this conduct NUHW and its agents improperly assumed the role of the NLRB and gave voting employees the false impression that the NLRB favored one of the three parties.

Perhaps the suggestion about the Commission's right and standing seem improper to you, but is it illegal? Or immoral to have third party supervision? Outside of Memorial management does anyone think management really cares about what is the morally or legally right thing to do? These are the same folks that laid off 200 of their workers and then hired a few of them back at bargain wages with no benefits! Yeah, it's hard to convince someone you have their best interests at heart when you have on hand on their throat and the other hand rooting around in their wallet/purse.

7. NUHW and it agents and/or third parties made statements and published video which gave to voting employees the impression that the Commission was a neutral organization formed to monitor election conduct conduct by all parties, and that, prior to the polling, the Employer and SEIU had each engaged in improper conduct whereas the Commission was not, and is not, a neutral organization but at all times has favored and advocated for one of the parties, namely NUHW and/or the Commission created an atmosphere of confusion and coercion and interfered with the employees' rights.

They are neutral insofar as they have nothing to gain or lose based on the outcome of the election. As for confusion and coercion, do they really think anyone is going to buy into the idea that academics, politicians and faith leaders created an atmosphere of coercion and confusion in the week between the Commission's creation and the end of the election? Clearly confusion and coercion are the jobs of the Zombies and Memorial management.

I'm tiring of this "NUHW and it agents and/or third parties" dragnet. Why is NUHW being lumped in with their supporters? Why isn't anyone else listed by name? Is this their way of blaming the supporters of the organizing drive: BeyondChron, Empire Report, ¡Adiós, Andy!, In These Times, L.A.Times, Labor Notes, Daily Kos, and of course The Red Revolt?

8. Board agents failed to monitor and prevent improper conduct by NUHW, its agents, by employees in the voting area.

So, bite the hand that feeds you, huh? This should work out well. And how is the NLRB supposed to prevent improper conduct by employees in the voting area?

9. The Board created a ballot that displayed the employees' choices in different fonts and font styles thereby confusing voters and/or creating the impression that the NLRB disfavored the employer and considered a vote for "Neither" was not on equal terms and was of lesser significance to a vote for either union.

I can't believe I have to ask this again, but: just how dumb do they think their employees are? Do they really think if there were variations in the "fonts or font styles" employees would some how mess up voting? This isn't Florida: we aren't talking about hanging chads here!

10. By the above and other conduct, NUHW, and its agents and/or third parties, and by the above and other conduct, Board Agents, interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in exercise of their Section 7 rights and interfered with their ability to exercise a free and reasoned choice in the election.

Clearly they have almost nothing worth investigating and certainly nothing worth holding up an election. Simply put, this is just a delaying tactic. We're all waiting and working for the day an NLRB spokesperson says "And the winner is NUHW!" In the mean time the workers and community will continue to build pressure and expose management for what it really is: a bunch of democracy hating, employee crushing individuals with only their own bottom lines.

Memorial management shows it's true colors

What we all knew was going on behind closed doors is now exposed to the light of day. I suggest reading Michael Aparicio's article on Empire Report, then reading below for my own color commentary on the Zombies new bestfriends.

It's very telling of the Zombies cozy association with hospital management, the carte blanche access they enjoy and allegations they have almost thrown in the towel before the vote even began.

Here are the documents referenced in Michael's article.

First is management's voter guide. I thought the Zombies giving us homecare workers voting advice was bold and stupid but this takes the cake!

They start out using good reasoning by encouraging their workers to get as much "real, factual, honest information -- as possible" but then they blow it by offering paid attendance to "voluntary information sessions". These are the same sessions that the FEOC, the Fair Election Oversight Committee was barred from overseeing. If management is acting in an above-board manner then there is no reason for them to hide behind closed doors. Whatever they are stating in secret, it must be really good, good enough to pass up transparency and the chance to get the heat off them and cause a little union in-fighting!

As for "treating one another with the highest level of Dignity and Justice"...ask Melissa Bosanco, one of 200 workers laid off and then rehired in a relief position with no health insurance, vacation time, sick time or voice how their Dignity initiative is working out for her. Can you believe that: she works at a hospital and there is no offer for health insurance. I wonder if she gets an employee discount.

So when it comes to making an informed decision, Memorial management really means vote no union so they run rough-shod over their employees.

How dumb do they think their workers are? Do they really think their employer or any employer is anything but viciously anti-union? Can anyone cite any employer how has welcomed a union, ever?

It gets worse; read on. As shown below they go from nearly neutral to kiss-off-your-rights-and-voice by voting Neither union.

They're quite bold here.

"That is why when it comes time for you to cast your ballot, we hope you decide that your best choice is to vote for keeping your personal, direct voice, which means marking the ballot "Neither."

Finally, they seem to have come to their senses momentarily. Just kidding! Now they want to make sure you don't blow your chance to vote Neither!

How to lose raises and your rights on the job in 6 easy steps!

Memorial hospital management has already begun their anti-union campaign with anti-union memos and one-on-one meetings between supervisors and employees. This week, St. Joseph Health System CEO Kevin Klockenga also sent a memo to all employees telling them that management wants them to vote against unionization. These practices are in violation of standards for fair union elections, and signal that workers’ rights continue to be at risk without an enforceable agreement between the parties.

Wait...what the? Hmmmmm This doesn't seem to square with their previous statement: "We are unwavering in our commitment to our employees, and honoring their dignity and choice on union matters," (shown on second page, second paragraph).

An employer offering anti-union advice is nothing new; Memorial management has released the following flier. I wonder how dumb they think their employees are?

Time to tear apart management style anti-union rhetoric.

1.) Why does the hospital allow union organizers to be in the cafeteria? They really bother me and my coworkers when we just want to eat our lunch in peace. Can we tell them to go away and leave us alone?

They offer a public cafeteria and can't choose who eats there. But should a worker be caught talking with a union rep and a worker willingly accept any written material...management would have you think that's a crime against humanity! As for needing permission to tell someone to go away...I don't believe any worker thinks this. This sounds like a subtle way of getting managements' wishes into the minds of their workers.

2.) In last week's information on union dues, you said that dues for SEIU are higher than for NUHW. Why are NUHW's dues lower?

First off thanks for supporting NUHW with the lower dues argument. A nice and unexpected bonus. Betcha ya didn't mean to say that!

It appears that the Zombies have been feeding propaganda right to the hospital administrators. Does the phrase about NUHW "[i]s going broke and facing a substantial judgment in Federal court" sound familiar? It's right out of SEIU's constant whining you read on the anti-NUHW fliers.

I don't think SEIU wants to further weaken it's position with workers at Memorial and NUHW is trying to differentiate itself from the Purple Plague by not gathering dues until a contract has been negotiated and ratified. Also, dues deductions are handled by the payroll department, not the union. D'oh!

NUHW offers lower dues since it isn't paying off an $87.7 million loan, nor did it squander $10 million in Fresno and frightening and intimidating former members (scroll down to pages 35-37, 48-50).

3.) We were told that the union won't charge dues until we get a contract. Is that true?

When dues are deducted depends on which union is selected. The Zombies have no problem deducting dues for workers who are not yet members, as was the case for homecare workers 8 years ago. It was $10 a month for 4 months but still $10 x 1,800 x 4 = $72,000 for months of no real representation.

4.) Should I worry about paying dues if I am going to vote Neither [no union]?

If viewed as an investment it's a guaranteed return of several hundred percent, every month, no risk. Unless a worker is allergic to money who wouldn't want that?! I pay $32 in dues a month, and get a paycheck that is a couple hundred dollars more than if I weren't represented (at least until October 1, 2010; scroll down to Section 7.1 Wages). If  members made less money with a union would anybody vote for them? Ever?

5.) What happens if none of the three choices gets a majority [at least 50%+1] of the votes?

In the absence of an "absolute majority" winner a run off will be held. Handy tip for preventing a run off: don't throw away your vote by voting for no union or worse the Zombies. They contracts they bargain go downhill pretty fast in subsequent contracts.

6.) I signed the card that authorizes the union to represent me, but I changed my mind. The union and its supporters are telling me that I have to vote for the union. Is that true?

As for being required to vote: this isn't Singapore (where voting is mandatory) --  no one has to vote, ever. However, if you don't vote you can't complain if the outcome of the election and resulting union presence/absence. Given SEIU previous behavior, I suspect they are the ones pressuring the workers, NUHW simply doesn't have the desire to bully workers. SEIU's abandoning of the workers not once but twice should be all the motivation the workers need to vote against the Zombies and hopefully NUHW.