Showing posts with label email. Show all posts
Showing posts with label email. Show all posts

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Email to save homecare...guess who DIDN'T send it?

Ah yet another chance for the Zombie to prove they have their members best interests at heart. Care to place a bet on when or if they will send their own version of the email below?

* * *

Last week, politicians in Washington passed a jobs bill WITHOUT critical fiscal relief for states and local governments. Without this money, states will slash hundreds of thousands of jobs and gut education, health care and public safety services even more. For example, without these funds,  state costs for IHSS will increase from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion.  This will make it far more difficult for us to prevent cuts to IHSS in this year’s budget.However, there is still a chance to get this aid in the Senate version of the bill. Please call your senators right now. Tell them to include state aid in this jobs bill.

It will be nothing short of catastrophic for the already dire budget crisis in most states if this Medicaid funding does not get put back into this jobs bill. This funding (known as FMAP) would provide $26 billion in badly needed resources for state and local governments.

Please click here to call your senators right now.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

My half-day in court

Warning: Brief occurrences of what some would call harsh language are shown below.

Update: Check out Elsa' comment below. I'm not the only one who had been threatened by Mark.

Long time readers of the Red Revolt will remember the pitiful rally the Zombies put on back in December in front of Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital as proof of the Zombies endless love for the workers (a love that was almost completely unknown to the workers and definitely not reciprocated). That 50-ish minute rally was such a bore. Luckily for me that evening had a brief moment of mild excitement. While writing the blog entry about the rally I was recieved a phone call from gravely voiced Mark Nelson (below, right). He called that night and stated that I was "a bitch", "an asshole" and he was "going to kill you and your wife if I ever see you again". This is in all likelihood a hollow threat...but a threat is a threat and I need to take whatever protective measures I can to protect my wife, my stuff and me, provided they are within the confines of the law. Working within the confines of the law...it's just the NUHW way!

*   *   *

From my own experience Mark is human megaphone and from the credible sources I've spoken to he is a world class union bully. He does as he is told without understanding, hesitation or any perception of the irony of member-on-member threats or violence. Division among the members is ok with him as long as he gets union staff approval. There will probably always be some bad blood between Zombie UHW supporters and NUHW supporters, especially those that are still represented by UHW. I have always tried to not fight against my homecare members, no matter how much their willing ignorance and blind obedience proves the need for enlightenment. Instead I educate my peers them by speaking in calms tones (as opposed to this witch), listening, and gently working into the conversation the Zombies own plans for world domination at the expense of it's dues paying members. Specifically I tell them, with supporting documentation that can be independently verified, UHW's publicly stated plans for dividing long term care workers (homecare and nursing home) from the hospital workers which form the rest of the quickly disintegrating Zombie UHW. Why Zombie SEIU ever thought separating long term care workers and placing us in the low wages for homecare workers local replete with corrupt leadership would ever fly is a mystery to me.

Balancing my need to protect my wife, our lives and things against this loose-cannon Zombie UHW supporter with convictions including 2 misdemeanor DUIs, disturbing the peace and theft, I filed the paperwork for a restraining the day after the December rally. And then I waited, and waited and finally asked what do I do next some time in February. I asked what happened to the paperwork and was told "it takes a while to process". So I waited a while longer and at this time it was the end of March. When I asked this time I finally found a clerk who would explain the restraining order process. Turns out restraining order requests received before 8:30 AM and processed by 2-3 PM the same day or the next business day if received after 8:30.You'd think after filing the paperwork and getting approval to proceed they'd at least call me to let me know I have to come down and take the next steps, but no that's not how they do business. I filed it again on March 31, and it was promptly rejected due to lack of information. I tried one more time: I filled in all the blanks and checked off all the boxes and refiled soon after, this time with an better explanation of the danger Nelson poses to my wife and me and his past criminal convictions. This time it worked and a court date was set.

I was kind of expecting Nelson to not show up to court. I'm not sure if he can drive or has a vehicle. I should have guessed that being a Zombie UHW supporter he'd behave in typical Zombie fashion and hit me with everything he's got, as you will see below. Not only did he supply a packet of mostly irrelevant and outdated paperwork including letters of recommendation and medical descriptions of his nephew's needs and dependency on him, he brought along his own cadre of blindly obedient Zombie supporters include Marie "look at me, I'm the Chicken Lady!" Melchor (below, left), Karen "I'll make a reference to 72 virgins at a Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting" Timmons, Bonita "but we're winning against NUHW" Graham, and both last and least impressive of all Zombie UHW field rep Shareefah "Reefah/you're kicked out of my office for life for trying to take a piece of paper that all UHW members have a right to have (explained below)" Joseph. There were a couple of other supporters there but, really, who cares?! Nelson also had his own "legal adviser", I did not. I didn't think I needed one he has a criminal record and phoned in a death threat.


Photo credits: Marie's image is from a frame I pulled out of the Shine a Light video; Nelson is on Flikr. Both the video of her and the photo of him were submitted by the Zombies.

*   *   *
So the trial began with the judge urging us to go onto the hallway outside the court and work out our differences with a court appointed mediator. Short (and boring) story short: we both agreed to stay out of each others for the next 2 years lives unless we are both at a union related function and then to keep 25 feet apart. I can do that, I've been doing it for years. Nelson and I don't run in the same social circles and rarely find any value in what the Zombie staff are saying so this should  not be a problem.

You might ask: "Yeah, so, where's the interesting part come in?!" and I'd say the same. Hold on to your socks folks, and get ready for me to bring on the stupid that is Zombie UHW staff and supporters.

*   *   *
So while waiting for Nelson to read over the mutual stay away order, I read the contents of the packet Nelson wanted to present to the court proving that I am indeed the devil incarnate. It may be a response to my letter explaining our need for protection from Nelson.

As you will note I didn't reveal the name of this mystery woman. I had no idea the Zombies, both Reefah and the member supporters, would attempt to identify her...and miss! At this point it's not really important who she is, suffice it to say she isn't the unanimously misidentified Elsa Stevens.

Here's Reefah's recollection of that evening.

Two questions come to mind:
  1. Why wasn't Elsa allowed in? They had a roster to check who had voted so far. If a voter's name is crossed off that member doesn't get a ballot. The very fact they wouldn't allow members to speak out against the contract speaks volumes about the Zombies fear of informed members and NUHW's superior relationship with us, the prisoners of Zombie UHW.
  2. What is this nonsense about the seat being "Mark's seat"? Do they view us a kindergartners? Of course they do!
Monica Reeder, another one of the "elite" bargaining team members responsible for our current ticking time bomb contract has some very nice things to say. I'm sure it's all true and Mark is as pure as the driven snow (bleeeeech), but what I find much more interesting is the quality of the writing.Clearly this is the kind of person that should NOT be bargaining labor contracts.


Spelling mistakes, word choice ("gotten"), lack of proofreading and clearly the writing of a grade school student...is it any wonder why the Zombies prefer their supporters to be unquestioning and blindly obedient? Add to this the changing last name of Elsa and the statement that Petaluma is Elsa's "area of voting" and you see there is confusion among even the Zombie followers about who gets to vote and where. Why would Elsa, who lives in Healdsburg be required to vote in Petaluma, 32 miles away? Sounds like voter oppression to me!

Keep in mind this restraining order request was about Mark's death threat phone call, not the rigged election.

(Begin rant)
The ratification vote was spread out across 3 days, one city on each day for 2 hours, (that's 6 hours for 5100+ members, or an average of 14 votes a minute, if we all had been able to show up) in the middle of rush hour. They did this under the guise of greater voter turnout but really they didn't want people to view the contract before voting, and certainly without a consultation from brainwashed bargaining team members before casting a ballot in the rigged vote. Before the trusteeship voting was done by mail, alone and with a copy of the proposed contract in hand so members had the opportunity to make an informed decision. Why would they be so secretive when the are just going to count the votes themselves? Purple paper ballots, without a vote concealing envelope, into a cardboard box...never have I felt like my vote didn't count. When I voted in Petaluma, I did so because the other 2 days I could have voted I had work. Voting  in Santa Rosa, where live would have been more convenient.
(End rant)

Finally is Karen Timmons recollection of Mark blocking members from attending the vote. Karen is convinced that Elsa came to disrupt the voting; knowing Elsa I believe she came to watch and take note of the coercive voting for her own "enlightenment".


Well at least the writing is commensurate with that of an adult but you can tell she is willing to accept the assumption about Elsa's presence and actions that night. Was Elsa at the Library in Healdsburg that night? I don't know or care. Her actions that night have nothing to do with Mark calling me.

How it is that Karen, a woman with a  Masters degree, crossed-over to the dark side? If you ever have the misfortune of meeting Karen you'll know in an instant. Some people are just dieing to drink the Purple Kool-Aid.

So you can see the Zombies are so desperate to oppress the truth with irrelevant claims and mutual assumptions about who did what, we can focus on something real. And this where it become quite interesting.

*   *   *
Shown below is Karen's defense of her part in an email exchange. I'd suggest you go read the email exchange first them come back to her "but he started it" claim below.
 
Karen was working with NUHW supporters until she emailed us stating:
Hi Everyone -

Because of health problems these past few weeks and upcoming personal matters, I will no longer be a member of the Steering Committee or a Steward. Best of luck to us all.

- Karen
It wasn't long before she showed her face with a sickly Purple tinge.

Also, what evidence do you have to prove "____ has a history of going 'where wise men fear to tread' "? Don't you just love the claims of the Zombies that are without merit or substantiation?! Unless I'm mistaken, I think this is nearly every claim made since the trusteeship!

One would think the rigorous training you received for you MA gave you the tools to look at what is going on objectively and make informed decisions. Sadly you are far too eager to turn your back of your fellow homecare workers for the privilege of bargaining an all give away contract.

Next up is Reefah's recounting of one day a long time ago about something that has nothing to do with anything presented in the restraining order request.

If only this statement tried to reflect what really happened that day. Yes, I was at the office, probably asking questions she didn't want to or knew how to answer. While there I saw some fliers advertising the UHW funded bus trip to Sacramento to lobby legislators about not killing funding for homecare.What Marie had in her hand was a copy of a flier with the date and time to get on the bus. I took a copy for myself since I have a lousy memory, and this really angered Marie and Reefah. Earth to Reefah: I'm a union member too! Turns out dues paying UHW members who are even suspected of being NUHW supporters, aren't allowed onto the bus. This was back when the Zombies still kind of cared about fighting for members instead of fighting with members, and Reefah was tolerant of NUHW supporters being in her office. Nevermind that I am a homecare worker just like them, this is a labor law violation and I am one of the few who have the courage and public speaking experience to address the Senate subcommittee. Reefah's M.O. is all about dividing the members according to union preference. Fortunately for me, I never really have to go to the Zombie UHW office, so this lifetime ban for "still"ing a piece of paper my own union printed for my benefit has no real impact on me. Reefah you have my word that, as soon as I figure out what it means to "still", I will never "still" anything, ever!

Next up is Reefah's partner in crime, Marie Melchor, a/k/a the Chicken Lady. I'll transcribe what she wrote since the copy is kind of light and hard to read. Jonathan Nelson is the nephew of Mark Nelson.


STATEMENT OF MARIE MELCHOIR

Dec, 9. 2009

I was at a union event outside [Santa Rosa] Memorial hospital. I am Marie Melchor and I was accompanied by Jonathan Nelson. I was the UHW mascott [sic] so I'm dressed as a UHW Chicken. I gave Jonathan Nelson to Mark Nelson so I could mascott. [Mascot is now a verb!] When we were done parading around on the sidewalk I took Jonathan Nelson with me after Jonathan and I [we?] watched Mark Nelson board the bus Jonathan and I were walking to my car when ____ came running up on us with flashing camera lights. Jonathan started yelling and hitting at the flashing lights. I was hit in the face by Jonathan and given a bloody nose. I yelled at ____ and told him he needed to back off. ____ refused so I said "if you don't back off I'll have to shit on you!" I took Jonathan Nelson back to my car and had him sit in the back seat. He hit the back of my seat violently and was yelling. I let him calm down before I got in and drove him to Petaluma. to where Mark was. I told Mark about what had happened and Mark was upset hearing it. Jonathan went with Mark and I drove home. I was so mad after having a bloody nose and knowing that Jonathan hit Mark that I made a phone call to ____ yelling at him when he picked up the phone telling him "You don't mess with the disabled" in my loud voice. Then I hung up my phone. The phone call to  ----'s house was made on Dec. 10, 2009.

Marie J. Melchor
Sheesh! There's so much to pick apart here, so I'd better get started.

First off, assuming Marie sustained injuries from Jonathan's reactions truly happened did Marie or Mark make a police report? I am suspicious of the date on her letter.

My recollection of that day was I stepped out from behind a bus shelter so I could take a picture of Maire in her Chicken Lady costume. When she asked me not to take a pictures of her I turned off my camera and walked away. There was no violence inducing flashing lights; the flash won't fire during the bright of day! The pair walked back down and then crossed the street without incident A bloody nose shortly after I allegedly took the "flashing lights" picture would have been awesome "smoking gun" evidence to warrant a restraining order or other court action, but I've never been served Why this didn't end up in a Zombie UHW flier speaks to the credibility of Marie's statement.

As for threatening to shit on someone...what finishing school did she go to? A woman who is willing to wear a UHW Chicken costume is quite telling of the kinds of members the Zombies are courting for purposes of "democratically elected" bargaining committees, stewards, etc.They seem to love the phrase "democratically elected _________" so they can assuage the thoughts of doubting members and the media. Also, shouldn't it be an NUHW Chicken costume?

If I were Mark I'd be upset about my nephew's temporary caretaker fabricating such a story. Marie, it's ok to tell - and hear - the truth.

Neither my wife nor I received the phone call she described. However, she had admitted to calling me at my home, so this might be good self-incriminating evidence to have on hand for the future. Heh heh heh, thanks Maire!

As for messing with the disabled, little does she know how long I have been with my wife and for the last 10 years taken her skiing with her disabled friends. Clearly I know nothing about the disabled.

Ok, folks we're almost done. I'm tired of researching, writing and editing this wonderfully lame story.

Finally, here is Mark's description of what he didn't do with a nauseating ending including a jab at NUHW that had nothing to do with anything.

First off is his statement that I didn't suffer emotional distress. Meh, whatever.

____ has not suffered emotional distress because of the accusations he made are false.
(I permantely disabled the caps lock on my computer and I'm not holding down shift while I transcribe; otherwise the transcription is verbatim. Text in bold was added for emphasis.)

Next is his side of the story.


____ assaulted my 23 yr old severely disabled and partially blind nephew and my friend, Maire Melchoir [sic] on Dec 9, 2009 by repeatedly flashing a camera in my nephews eyes 6 or 7 times) despite Ms. Melchoir's pleas to stop because my nephew has a seizure disorder and violent outbursts.) I was not present at that time and Ms. Melchoir called ____ the next day to tell him never to do anything like that again because my nephew had a
[continues on next page]
seizure disorder and a violent outburst that lasted over and hour and resulted in me getting hit, as well as Ms. Melchor right afterwards.
I never called Mr ______ or threatened/him despite what he did.
On Sept 23rd I was working with Monica Reeder, another UHW volunteer like me, greeting members at the doors of the Healdsburg Library when Ms. Else Stevens, the woman referred to in the complaint approached me. I motioned her to the door where union reps Shareefah Joseph and Gustavo Corralo [sic]. Confronted Ms. Stevens because she has already voted the day before in Petaluma on the union contract. After agreeing she has already voted, Ms. Stevens chose to stay and chat with me and Ms. Reeder for over 45 mins. These are not the actions of someone who feels threatened.
____ made false accusations against me, harassed other union members, and misused the justice system to further his NUHW cause.
Funny how his statement is based upon someone else's biased, stand alone statement. All he did was place the call, he had no other part in my complaint. Why didn't he bring his phone bill proving at least he didn't call me from his home or cell phones is beyond me. Proving a negative is difficult at best, but Mark could have tried. He also could have filed a police report or done anything to make his case and protect his nephew from us free thinking freelancing photographers

I have to agree with Mark: these are not the actions of a threatened person, too bad his assumption about who I refered to in the complaint is flat out wrong.

Finally, as for misusing the justice system to "further his NUHW cause", Mark you couldn't be further from the truth. UHW is the reining king of misuse of the legal system for it's own gain. Filing to block an election and then selectively pressing some of those same elections to be schedules is an abuse of the legal system that put my alleged misuse to shame. This is about your thoughtless, knee-jerk, death threat laden phone call. Grow up and leave us alone. If I had a recording of your phone call you would have had a restraining order by the end of last December.

*   *   *

Mark, Marie, Karen and other homecare workers not mentioned here were, at first, NUHW supporters. Mark was so committed to the cause he got, long before the trusteeship, a UHW tattoo. Yeah. Check his arms next time you see him, that is, if you dare get close enough. Unfortunately for them they crossed-over to the dark side and drank copious quantities of Purple Kool-Aid, forming a dependency within days. I think it is unfortunate because they knew what UHW had in mind for homecare workers, knew they were talking to peers who had mutual gain in mind and they knew UHW would say anything to keep it's members from defecting to a much better union. They knew full well what was going and still turned their back on their peers to serve themselves.

My theory about why this group of Zombie supporters so willingly and blindly following their master's lead included 3 likely reasons: they listen to whatever they perceive as an authority and follow that person's lead, especially if that person lavishes the subject with attention; the utter disbelief that UHW has fundamentally changed; and they've heard just Zombie UHW's perspective, and without some other source of information about the struggle for healthcare workers, this is all they believe. Part of why I wrote this very lengthy article was so I could try to tell the whole story and allow the reader to decide what's true and what's fluff. This, more than anything else, is what separate NUHW and its supporters from the Zombies.

I didn't get my restraining order but I did get a whole lot of insight into who makes up the Zombie "leadership" in Sonoma county.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Zombie's epic fail in Kaiser Roseville

From retired blogger SierraSpartan whose blog I have reference more than once is a recap of the woefully under-attended Zombie rally at Kaiser Roseville. His email was received at 1:27 today.

This word just in from my Kaiser Roseville source...

SEIU and Zombie UHW had a "contract support rally" at Roseville today,
and was an out-and-out bust.

1) No Barney Bus - therefore, no lost-timers from other facilities to
make the protest look bigger than it really is.

2) Start time at 10:00 a.m., supposed to go to 2:00 p.m., but it
didn't get going until after 11:30 a.m., and has already broken up.

3) Management sent out two different notices about this rally (on two
different shifts over two different days. But even with two different
sendall messages going out to the entire Roseville staff, only about
20 people showed up at the middle of lunch hour (and the time of the
highest attendance of this "rally") to particpate in the UHW march
around the Roseville Eureka campus.

So - out of about 2500 to 3000 total employees on the campus, about
half of which are members of one union or another, only 20 people came
out and marched with Zombie UHW - and at least half of those
individuals were and are identifiable as either organizers or staff.

Three words: Weapons. Grade. FAIL.

Photos to follow.

Regards,

Sierra
Keep the juicy news coming, Sierra!

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Email from NUHW: "Real problems, fake protests"

Here's the latest  from NUHW. My favorite sentence: "Today SEIU can't even get ten people together for a picket." That's almost as pathetic as the "this is the only support we're giving you" fake rally for Memorial workers. At least there they had the idea of trucking in people from out of the area. Are they so strapped for cash they can't afford a single bus for a day? And who can forget Melissa Bosanco's observation "I don't see any of my co-workers on this picket line"?

Hey Zombies: do the job our dues money pay for like challenging an employer that is proposing cuts to hours, wages and staffing. Maybe a little advocacy for homecare workers while you at it? Please? I'm just saying.

NUHW, National Union of Healthcare Workers
Real problems, fake protests

Dear Keyser,

This morning, seven SEIU staff showed up outside my hospital and tried to get people to come outside for a picket to "support our contract." Only seven or eight workers came out, and when they did, it wasn't about our contract at all--SEIU was attacking those of us who are organizing to join NUHW.


We have real problems at Daughters of Charity hospitals, and we know why SEIU doesn't want to talk about our contract. They lied to us to get us to ratify an agreement that has takeaways on job security, health insurance, and scheduling, and doesn't even have full retro pay. (Leaflet: Retro pay or Giveaway?)


Healthcare workers are losing thousands of dollars because SEIU settled a cheap contract that sets us back.


But SEIU isn't doing the first thing to solve our problems. Instead they're wasting our dues money on stunts like the one today, to try to stop us from taking back our union with NUHW.


It won't work.


Just like workers at Kaiser, Santa Rosa Memorial, Los Alamitos, Providence Tarzana, the Sequoias, and Doctors San Pablo, we can see right through SEIU. They're on the boss's side and they're afraid of workers having control.


When we fought for a contract in 2008, we had hundreds of our co-workers marching with us. Today SEIU can't even get ten people together for a picket.


We're voting NUHW to bring back the strong, effective, democratic union we fought for years to build--and we're not going to let anyone stand in our way.
In unity,

Nina Ordonez
, CNA, Seton Coastside
National Union of Healthcare Workers


Way to stand up to the Zombie intimidation my future brothers and sisters! Keep up the good fight!

Thursday, November 19, 2009

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

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

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.