Voter Intimidation Ballot used by SEIU 221 for August 18 Contract Vote

Following the August 18, 2011 rigged vote on a new contract offer from County of San Diego, unfair labor practice charges have been filed against the union. The charges allege violation of California Government Code Sections 3502, 3506 and 3507.1. Following is the text of the charge description and the related documents and exhibits filed.

  A Countyof San Diego Contracts Bargaining Team was created by SEIU Local 221 during November of 2010.

SEIU Local 221 President Eric Banks and Local 221 did approve, authorize and allow the creation of an unelected bargaining team. The scheduled election for bargaining team members on September 20-24, 2010 was cancelled. It had been scheduled to take place during the same period that the U.S. Department of Labor was supervising the Local 221 election for local president and executive board seats, August 20-September 21, 2010. The two elections were completely separate processes, with separate ballots and dates. The DOL-supervised election was hotly contested. However, with at least twenty-seven seats to fill on the bargaining team, only a handful of candidates submitted valid nomination petitions for the bargaining team election.  Those candidates were unopposed for their respective bargaining unit seats on the team, and were deemed “elected”. The remaining seats were then filled not by a rescheduled election, but by appointing team members.

The creation of an unelected bargaining team violated union members’ rights under the MMBA, especially Government Code Sections 3502 and 3506, and violated the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws and the SEIU Local 221 Constitution and Bylaws.

SEIU Local 221 Constitution and Bylaws Article IV, B.l. provides:

“Members shall have the right to vote on all Local Union matters that affect the collective bargaining relationship of their bargaining unit with the employer such as the bargaining team, contract proposals and contract ratification/rejection, and strikes.” [emphasis added]

The actions of President Banks and Local 221 in creating an unelected bargaining team violate these following subsections of the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws, Article XVII, Section 1 (and the parallel subsections of SEIU Local 221 Constitution and Bylaws, Article XIV):

“(1) Violation of any specific provision of this Constitution or of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Local Union;”:

 SEIU Local 221 Constitution and Bylaws Article IV, B.l was violated.

 “(2) Violation of an oath of office;”

 The oaths violated are: “I pledge that I will faithfully observe the Constitution and Bylaws of the Service Employees International Union.” and “I will not knowingly wrong a member or see a member wronged if it is in my power to prevent it.”

 “(4) If an officer, gross inefficiency which might hinder and impair the interests of the International Union or the Local Union;”

 An unelected bargaining team lacks any mandate and any accountability to the Local Union membership. By his gross inefficiency in not scheduling a new election for bargaining team members, President Banks and Local 221 exposed the membership to unnecessary and greater risk of irresponsible and harmful decisions made by the bargaining team. The results have been harmful, including pay cuts, erosion of members’ standard of living, and damage to members’ relations with the employer.

 “(6) Engaging in corrupt or unethical practices or racketeering;”

 Violating the right of members to vote to elect our bargaining team is a corruption of union democracy and an unethical abuse of power. Such conduct degrades the reputation of the Local Union and harms our interests as union members and employees.

On November 30, 2010, the employer,CountyofSan Diego, presented SEIU Local 221 an offer of contract extensions, with concession modifications. The County repeated the offer, with some revision, on or about January 20, 2011, after Local 221 rejected the initial offer in December.

 In February of 2011, SEIU Local 221 President Banks and Local 221 did approve, authorize and allow the wording printed on the ratification ballot regarding the County’s contract extension offer. That wording was highly biased in favor of approval of the County’s offer. The wording (with check boxes) was:

 “SEIU Local 221 Tentative Agreement

“Yes – I vote to accept the contract extension.

“No – I vote to reject the contract extension and proceed to negotiations. I agree to participate in any actions necessary.”

 California Government Code Section 3506 provides:

“Public agencies and employee organizations shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of their rights under Section 3502.”

 and California Government Code Section 3502 provides, in relevant part:

 “Except as otherwise provided by the Legislature, public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. [emphasis added].

The extra wording added to the “No” vote choice, especially “I agree to participate in any actions necessary” constitutes gross voter intimidation and coercion and a violation of the right to participate without suffering discrimination and interference. Voters have the right to vote “no” without any conditions and without any expectation or pledge or oath to perform any other act.

 SEIU Local 221 Constitution and Bylaws Article IV, B.l. provides:

 “Members shall have the right to vote on all Local Union matters that affect the collective bargaining relationship of their bargaining unit with the employer such as the bargaining team, contract proposals and contract ratification/rejection, and strikes.” [emphasis added]

 By turning the February 26, 2011 contract extension vote ballot into an utter mockery of democracy, SEIU Local 221 President Banks and Local 221 have violated and denied the members’ right to vote.

 Members of Local 221 who are employed by theCountyofSan Diegoconcluded this ratification vote on February 26, 2011 regarding the employer’s offer. Five bargaining units voted to ratify and six bargaining units voted to reject the offer. One bargaining unit (Social Services Supervisors) had a tie vote. The Local did not accept this as a rejection of the offer by that unit. Instead of upholding the basic democratic principle that ratification required a majority vote of 50% plus 1, the Local forced the unit to vote again. The second vote resulted in a majority in favor of ratification. This forced, second vote for the SS unit violated members rights under MMBA.

 One bargaining unit (Registered Nurses) ratified the offer by only one vote. For at least this bargaining unit the tainted wording of the ballot may have determined the outcome. For all bargaining units, the tainted wording caused the vote tallies to be an unreliable indication of the true will of the voting membership.

Ratification of the employer’s offer has had an adverse effect on each employee’s relationship with the employer. Ratification and implementation of the contract extensions has meant a reduction in the take-home pay of each employee in a ratifying bargaining unit, by 2.5% reduction in the amount of the retirement offset paid by the employer for each employee. Members also will lose money on rising healthcare benefits costs. Employee morale and rapport with management has suffered. This has been intensified by recent news reports, and statements by County and SEIU officials, that the County has been operating with annual budget surpluses, despite the Great Recession, and maintains a $2.2 billion cash reserve, and that the County’s pension fund has recently won awards for being among the best managed, well-funded and healthiest pension funds in the country. The County has also publicly stated that a number of expensive new construction projects were being paid for with “cash”. And the County is not requiring upper management staff to suffer the same healthcare benefits costs or as extreme reductions in County contributions to their retirement funds, as compared to the employees affected by these County contracts with SEIU Local 221.

On March 4, and March 8, and March 15, 2011 internal union charges were filed with SEIU Local 221, by members of the Local Union, in accordance with the terms of the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws, Article XVII, Section 2(a), and in accordance with the terms of the SEIU Local 221 Constitution and Bylaws, Article XIV. The charges were concerning outrageous language on the February 26, 2011 ballots and violation of the membership right to elect bargaining teams. On March 9, 2011 SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry was asked to assume original jurisdiction for the case. On April 27, 2011 International President Henry declined original jurisdiction. The charging members have received no response from SEIU Local 221. The complete lack of any response, such as a written notice of dismissal or denial of the charges, has frustrated and violated the charging members’ appeal rights under the union’s internal rules.

On April 19, 2011 the six rejecting bargaining units opened contract renewal negotiations with theCountyofSan Diego.

On May 31, 2011 Local 221 filed unfair labor practice charges against Countyof San Diego. That PERB case number is LA-CE-692-M. The charges looked back to the County’s November 30, 2010 offer and its bad faith bargaining thereafter. The charges stated:

“It was made clear during discussions about the proposed extension that should any unit not accept the extension of their respective Memorandum of Agreement and insist on having negotiations, to which the units were legally entitled upon expiration of the last extension of the Memoranda of Agreements, that the proposals made by the County in the proposed extension would not be remade and any proposals on those issues would not be as good as the proposed extension.”

However, during membership meetings in December of 2010 and in February of 2011 SEIU Local 221 President Eric Banks, Local 221 County of San Diego Chapter President Kelly Monge, and members of the union’s bargaining team told union members that the County would take away the entire 7 percent retirement offset if we voted down the contract extension offer. They made it sound as though we union members had no real choice in the matter, as though we had no right to negotiate and no right to expect the County to negotiate in good faith. It seemed like the employer and the union officials had teamed up to play “good cop, bad cop” against us union members, to get us to do what the County wanted.

The tone of the official union “messaging” changed when contract talks began on April 19, for the six remaining bargaining units. The County made an initial proposal including complete elimination of a 7 percent offset payment for employee contributions to the retirement fund, elimination of a sweeping array of premium payments, and freezing of step increases. Official union requests for information from the employer showed the County to be in good financial health.

For months SEIU 221 officials told members that the County has a large budget surplus (unlike most counties in the country) and more than $2.2 billion in cash reserves. Union officials had explained to members that the County’s pension fund has recently won awards for being one of the best managed, best funded, and healthiest funds in the country. More than 20 official union leaflets, explained this to members and urged members to “stand firm” for a fair contract and to resist the County’s demands for financially unjustified concessions. The leaflets are posted at the Union’s website at http://www.seiu221.org/countybargaining/flyers2011/Default.aspx Union rallies were held weekly at dozens of County worksites, and a large protest rally drew 700 people to the County Administration Building on June 4.

On May 31, theUnionalso filed unfair labor practice charges with PERB, alleging the employer was illegally failing to bargain and engaging in illegal coercion tactics. Those charges are pending a hearing.

The union contracts expired on June 16, 2011; an impasse was declared, and a mediator was called in to conduct the legal impasse procedure. Union representatives reported to the membership that the County was only “going through the motions.” On July 20, 2011, the impasse procedure was exhausted and the County presented its legal “last, best, and final offer.”

The July 20 contract offer evokes scenes from the mob movies genre, of an “offer you can’t refuse”. The County asked workers to agree to a 2 year contract with a 4 percent cut in the employer’s offset contribution to retirement funds. This offer was only good if ratified by the membership by August 25, 2011. After that date, the County’s offer was a 2 year contract with 7 percent cut (total elimination) of the offset, with 4 percent cut the first year and 3 percent cut the second year.

The officialUnion“messaging” abruptly changed. A large Solidarity Rally, set for July 23 in downtownSan Diegowas cancelled. On July 25, SEIU Local 221 President Banks told union members that the County threatens that if workers vote down the contract, that it may impose a 7 percent cut instead, for up to one year. Banks did not tell members what legal basis the County might have to impose more than the terms of the first year of the two-year offer.

Later, on July 25, theUnion’s bargaining team mysteriously voted to sign a tentative agreement and to ask the union membership to vote on the offer. TheUnion’s membership had already voted down a better bad offer in February, and many members had expected the bargaining team to simply reject the July 20 offer. Members began to hear a drum beat of doom and gloom from Union officials about the even larger pay cut the County might impose if we voted down the contract offer, and about how our union membership is “not willing and not ready” to continue fighting for a fair contract.

On August 3, 2011, thousands of County employees were amazed to see an email sent out on the County’s internal email system, by the County’s Human Resources Department “on behalf of” SEIU Local 221. The email was sent to all members of the six SEIU 221 bargaining units which opened contract renewal talks with the County on April 19.

That same day, paid union representatives appeared inside theMissionValleyFamilyResourceCenterand at theCountyAdministrationBuilding. The reps told workers that the County had given the Union permission to go worker-to-worker in work areas, during work time (and disrupting work), to hand out a leaflet and talk to workers about the vote currently being conducted to ratify or reject the tentative agreement (TA) on a new contract with the County. Union reps were doing the same at other worksites in the subsequent days.

Workers reported feeling intimidated by the sudden appearance of the union reps while they were working, and the language of the leaflet which says:

 ”If we do not ratify this TA, we must be prepared to mount an aggressive campaign against the County up to and including a sustained strike.”

Union officials did not tell workers that there is no legal requirement that workers authorize a strike if they vote “no” on a contract offer. Union officials did not tell workers that long strikes are extremely rare in the public sector.

The email sent on August 3, 2011 had the subject line: “Ratification Process of the Tentative Agreement“. It announced that voting on the contract offer would begin the very next day[!] Voting was to continue until August 18. In addition to information about the times and locations for casting ballots on the County’s “last, best and final” contract offer, the email explained that there would be “informational meetings” at the very same times and locations and that members would be “allowed to vote at these meetings”.

The email went on to warn members:

 ”If we do not ratify by August 25, 2011 the County can impose terms and conditions for up to one year that could include the elimination of the full 7% pension offset without any one time monetary payment or increases in health care flex benefits, or the other language changes agreed to.

 ”If the membership does not accept the TA we must be prepared to operate without a contract for up to one year.

 ”We must decide what we are willing to accept.”

Workers immediately objected that the rights to a secret ballot and to be free from campaigning at the polls were being trampled. The ominous warning in the email about the consequences of a “no” vote on the contract was also seen as a blatant scare tactic to promote a “yes” vote. It was also seen as directly aiding the County in its desire to implement a contract with sharp pay cuts.

When paid union reps appeared on Friday, August 5th at theCountyAdoptionsCenterin Linda Vista, Monty Kroopkin was very concerned, as a SEIU shop steward. He emailed the County’s top Labor Relations officer to inquire about it. Labor Relations Manager, Susan Brazeau, said the union reps were not violating any rule, and if their conduct was of any concern, employees should take it up with the Union President (not with a Security Guard or site manager).

Word of the County’s official position spread like wildfire. The County’s past practice has been to instruct employees that if they see any of the paid union reps wandering around a worksite unescorted by an employee, then employees are to call a Security Guard to take the rep to see a manager (and, usually, to be escorted off the property). Only a few weeks earlier, paid union rep Brian Polejes was escorted off the Levant Street worksite, for entering the building and disrupting workers while we were working, to exhort us to attend a unity rally.

SEIU Local 221 President Banks and Local 221 did approve, authorize and allow the wording printed on the ratification ballot regarding the County’s July 20, 2011 contract offer. That wording was highly biased in favor of approval of the County’s offer.

Beginning on August 4, 2011, workers were horrified to see the actual text of the ballots that Local 221 was using for the vote on the July 20 contract offer. There was nothing remotely resembling a simple “yes” or “no” vote. The ballots (color coded by bargaining unit) read as follows (with check boxes):

“SEIU 221 TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
[name of bargaining unit]

“Yes—For the tentative agreement (pgs 5-8);4% reduction in offset over 2 years, + $750 bonus in first year, & 1% bonus in second year, + 5% increase healthcare flex spending each year.

“No – And I am prepared to be imposed on and face up to a one year 7% offset reduction”

The wording of the ballot means members were only asked to vote on 4 pages of the County’s 20 page offer. Nowhere in the 20 pages does it state what the beginning and ending dates of the contract would be. Members were not allowed to vote on many of the terms of the County’s offer.

The extra wording added to both the “Yes” and the “No” vote choices constitutes gross voter intimidation and coercion and a violation of the right to participate without suffering discrimination and interference. Voters have the right to vote “no” without any conditions and without any expectation or pledge or oath to perform any other act.

During the balloting period, no official union literature was provided to give members “pro” and “con” statements regarding the contract offer. Only highly biased leaflets with frightening and misleading statements about the consequences of voting “no” were distributed by the union. The union provided no public meetings where members could discuss or debate or campaign for their positions regarding the contract offer. Announced “informational” meetings at the polls turned out to not be meetings at all, but rather only members of the bargaining team “explaining” the contract offer and answering questions about it (in highly biased fashion) for any members requesting it – all while standing right next to the voting booths while other members were voting.

Despite the addition of some more polling stations, in response to demands from members, Local 221 provided polling stations at only a small fraction of the relevant County worksites, and at the Union Hall, and a few other locations near County worksites. Most County worksites did not have a polling station. The hours the polls were open and the distance necessary to travel to a poll were insurmountable obstacles for many workers, and they were not able to vote.

The ballot language, the obstacles to voting, the campaigning at the polls, misleading union literature, and a complete shut out of any meaningful opportunity for members to campaign against the contract offer, made a complete mockery of the vote. SEIU Local 221 has demonstrated sheer contempt for the rights of the union membership and for our intelligence. The local has not even adopted election bylaws for the conduct of contract offer votes.

On August 18, 2011 Local 221 announced that all 6 bargaining units had ratified the July 20, 2011 new contract offer.

We urgently need PERB intervention to prevent this mockery of the rights of union members from becoming an implemented new contract. TheCountyBoardof Supervisors has not yet voted to approve the agreement. Alternatively, if PERB does not act soon enough to prevent the new contract from being signed and implemented, we need relief from the damages which will result, and nullification of the contract and an order by PERB that the union and the County return to the bargaining table to negotiate a new contract in good faith.

 What is Going on Here?

Many union activists see the County’s side of it as part of the wave of right-wing attacks on labor, like Wisconsin. We see the sort of concerted legislative and policy think-tank work such as that of the American Legislative Exchange Council behind it (see ALEC Exposed).

The County has 5 arch Republicans for its Board of Supervisors. The County is one of the few in the country that has been operating with a budget SURPUS, and with one of the strongest and healthiest pension funds in the country, and with $2.2 BILLION in cash reserves. Money is not the issue. Union activists see it as one of the new tactics the right is trying out around the country — to see if the Great Recession is causing more fear than fight and if they can cow workers into taking concessions even while the Boss is doing well. If workers lose this one here, they will roll it out across the country.

What is not so clear is why union officials also have a big financial stake in getting union members to act like sheep and march to the slaughter voting “yes”.

SEIU 221 has been operating at a deficit for the past few years. One can look up the annual “LM-2? financial statement that all unions file with the federal Dept of Labor, at the Dept’s website. The most recent one, for 2010, shows that the local took in $5,123,634 and spent $5,411,945. The previous year was worse, with the budget over-run exceeding $800,000.

Now, if union members all vote “no” on the contract offer, then 6 large bargaining units, with thousands of members, could be operating without a new contract until June 2012 (maybe even longer). When unions go without a contract, one of the things the employer can do is stop collecting union dues out of the paychecks, and stop giving the money to the union. The employer can try to bankrupt and kill the union. In our case, this tactic would violate the MMBA (Section 3508.5(c)) but members see the employer as already engaging in violations and believe the County could be willing to add another violation.

It is true that the other 6 bargaining units of County SEIU 221 members have a contract and their dues collections would be unaffected. The same is true with all the contracts SEIU 211 has with other employers in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Those other contracts represent only 20 percent of the Local’s membership, however. So, the County probably could not break the union financially, but could do serious damage by withholding dues check off.

It is highly likely that the International has told the local president to “sell” the pay cuts contract because (1) the International does not want to have to pay a lot of the local’s bills for the next year, and (2) the International does not want to spend money out of the strike and legal defense fund (they’d rather save it for campaign spending for Democrats in 2012), and (3) there is a strong movement of members organizing to switch to a new independent union, the Association of San Diego County Employees, with a certification election that concluded on August 25, 2011 with  the first bargaining unit, the Crafts unit, voting by a large margin to form the new union. If more bargaining units vote to leave SEIU, this also, of course, would have a drastic impact on the Local’s income.

If a new contract is signed, members working under that contract would be locked in to membership in SEIU until at least October of 2012. Without a new contract, those same members are free to petition for an election to switch unions, at any time, per the terms of the County’s Labor Relations Ordinance.

This latter motive for rushing the membership to sign a new contract also violates members’ rights under MMBA (Sections 3502 and 3507.1), to petition for a certification election to vote to choose which union to belong to. SEIU Local 221 is violating the right of represented workers to exercise our right to choose which union we want to belong to, by bargaining in bad faith and by manipulating the contract ratification/rejection voting process and the ballot itself to rush members into signing a new contract – ANY contract – in order to close the “window” for timely petitions for representation elections per the County Labor Relations Ordinance.

I and many members believe these are the reasons SEIU 221 President Eric Banks has suddenly stopped telling union members to FIGHT and to NOT put up with pay cuts.

With so many horror stories in the press in recent years about lying, cheating, thieving high level SEIU officials, it is little wonder members aren’t “buying” it this time. The National Labor Relations Board last month threw out an election involving 43,000 Kaiser workers represented by SEIU due to illegal conduct by SEIU and Kaiser. Former SEIU 6434 President Tyrone Freeman was recently caught stealing over $1 million dollars of union dues funds and rigging local union elections.  Numerous similar reports of SEIU corruption have been published in the past few years.

To remedy these violations, I ask:

(1) that PERB intervene to prevent this August 18, 2011 mockery of the rights of union members from becoming an implemented new contract. The CountyBoardof Supervisors has not yet voted to approve the agreement. Alternatively, if PERB does not act soon enough to prevent the new contract from being signed and implemented, we need relief from the damages which will result, and nullification of the contract and an order by PERB that the union and the County return to the bargaining table to negotiate a new contract in good faith.

 (2) that the six SEIU Local 221 with a contract extension agreement withCountyofSan Diegoshall have those agreements nullified;

(3) that the bargaining units which voted to ratify the County’s contract extension offer should have their vote done over again, under PERB supervision, without the offensive campaign language written into the ballot;

(4) that SEIU Local 221 shall compensate all affected members of these six bargaining units for all lost income and benefits suffered due to implementation of the contract extension agreement;

(5) that a new election be held within one month, for bargaining team members for County contract negotiations and for a term of office which will continue until one year prior to the expiration of all current contracts, contract extensions, or new contracts signed to replace any nullified as a result of this Unfair Labor Practice case.

(6) that a notice be posted by SEIU Local 221 for 30 days (and not covered or obscured) on all bulletin boards at the Union Hall and on all SEIU Local 221 union bulletin boards located at County of San Diego facilities, stating that Local 221 violated state law(s) and PERB regulations and stating which ones and reciting verbatim the text of said law(s) and regulations, and promising no such violations will take place in the future.

The following documents were filed with the California state Public Employment Relations Board on August 25, 2011:

photo_of_campaigning_at_poll,_8-9-11

Union_Hall_voting_station,_12Aug11

voter_info_presentation_at_polls,_Aug11

ULP charge against SEIU 221, August 25, 2011

Ulp charges attachment sheets 

February 26, 2011 ballot

August_3,_2011_email_from_County_HR_to_workers

August_5,_2011_email_exchange_between_Kroopkin_and_Brazeau 

221_Scare_Sheet_on_August_5,_2011

copy of LA-CE-692-M

 Henry to Kroopkin (4-27-11)

Letter to MK Henry, 9March11 

Banks Charges, w signatures [1]

Banks Charges, w signatures [2]

Banks charges, w signatures [3]

Labor_Relations_Ordinance

2009_SEIU_Local_221_Constitution

2008_SEIU_Constitution_and_Bylaws

See original article and comments posted at OB Rag Blog at http://obrag.org/?p=42711

On August 3, 2011, thousands of County employees were amazed to see an email sent out by the County’s Human Resources Department “on behalf of” their union. The workers are members of Service Employees International Union Local 221 (SEIU 221).

That same day, paid union representatives appeared inside the Mission Valley Family Resource Center and at the County Administration Building . The reps told workers that the County had given the Union permission to go worker-to-worker in work areas, during work time (and disrupting work), to hand out a leaflet and talk to workers about the vote currently being conducted to ratify or reject the tentative agreement (TA) on a new contract with the County. Union reps have been seen doing the same at other worksites in the subsequent days.

The contract offer evokes scenes from the mob movies genre, of an “offer you can’t refuse”. The County asks workers to agree to a 2 year contract with a 4 percent cut in the employer’s contribution to retirement funds. The County threatens that if workers vote down the contract, that it may impose a 7 percent cut instead, for up to one year.

An increasing number of workers report feeling intimidated by the sudden appearance of the union reps while they were working. The workers point to the language of the leaflet which says:

 ”If we do not ratify this TA, we must be prepared to mount an aggressive campaign against the County up to and including a sustained strike.”

 There is no legal requirement that workers authorize a strike if they vote “no” on a contract offer. Long strikes are extremely rare in the public sector.

The email sent on August 3, 2011 had the subject line: “Ratification Process of the Tentative Agreement“. It announced that voting on the contract offer would begin the very next day[!] Voting is to continue until August 18. In addition to information about the times and locations for casting ballots on the County’s “last, best and final” contract offer, the email explained that there would be “informational meetings” at the very same times and locations and that members would be “allowed to vote at these meetings”.

The email went on to warn members:

 ”If we do not ratify by August 25, 2011 the County can impose terms and conditions for up to one year that could include the elimination of the full 7% pension offset without any one time monetary payment or increases in health care flex benefits, or the other language changes agreed to.

 ”If the membership does not accept the TA we must be prepared to operate without a contract for up to one year.

 ”We must decide what we are willing to accept.”

 Workers immediately objected that the rights to a secret ballot and to be free from campaigning at the polls were being trampled. The ominous warning in the email about the consequences of a “no” vote on the contract was also seen as a blatant scare tactic to promote a “yes” vote. It was also seen as directly aiding the County in its desire to implement a contract with sharp pay cuts.

For months SEIU 221 officials have told members that the County has a large budget surplus (unlike most counties in the country) and more than $2.2 billion in cash reserves. Union officials have explained to members that the County’s pension fund has recently won awards for being one of the best managed, best funded, and healthiest funds in the country.

Union officials have urged members to “stand firm” for a fair contract and to resist the County’s demands for financially unjustified concessions. On May 31, the Union also filed unfair labor practice charges with the state Public Employment Relations Board, alleging the employer was illegally failing to bargain and engaging in illegal coercion tactics. Those charges are pending a hearing.

The union contracts expired on June 16, 2011; an impasse was declared, and a mediator was called in to conduct the legal impasse procedure. Union representatives reported to the membership that the County was only “going through the motions.” On July 20, 2011, the impasse procedure was exhausted and the County presented its legal “last, best, and final offer.”

The official Union “messaging” abruptly changed. A large Solidarity Rally, set for July 23 in downtown San Diego was cancelled.

The Union ‘s bargaining team mysteriously voted to sign a tentative agreement and to ask the union membership to vote on the offer. The Union ‘s membership had already voted down a better bad offer in February, and many members had expected the bargaining team to simply reject the offer. Members began to hear a drum beat of doom and gloom from Union officials about the even larger pay cut the County might impose if we vote down the contract offer, and about how our union membership is “not willing and not ready” to continue fighting for a fair contract.

When paid union reps appeared on Friday, August 5th at the County Adoptions Center in Linda Vista, I was very concerned, as a SEIU shop steward. I emailed the County’s top Labor Relations officer to inquire about it. Labor Relations Manager, Susan Brazeau, said the union reps were not violating any rule, and if their conduct was of any concern, employees should take it up with the Union President (not with a Security Guard or site manager).

Word of the County’s official position has been spreading like wildfire. The County’s past practice has been to instruct employees that if they see any of the paid union reps wandering around a worksite unescorted by an employee, then employees are to call a Security Guard to take the rep to see a manager (and, usually, to be escorted off the property).

 What is Going on Here?

Many union activists see the County’s side of it as part of the wave of right-wing attacks on labor, like Wisconsin. They see the sort of concerted legislative and policy think-tank work such as that of the American Legislative Exchange Council behind it (see ALEC Exposed).

The County has 5 arch Republicans for its Board of Supervisors. The County is one of the few in the country that has been operating with a budget SURPUS, and with one of the strongest and healthiest pension funds in the country, and with $2.2 BILLION in cash reserves. Money is not the issue. Union activists see it as one of the new tactics the right is trying out around the country — to see if the Great Recession is causing more fear than fight and if they can cow workers into taking concessions even while the Boss is doing well. If workers lose this one here, they will roll it out across the country.

What is not so clear is why union officials also have a big financial stake in getting union members to act like sheep and march to the slaughter voting “yes”.

SEIU 221 has been operating at a deficit for the past few years. One can look up the annual “LM-2? financial statement that all unions file with the federal Dept of Labor, at the Dept’s website. The most recent one, for 2010, shows that the local took in $5,123,634 and spent $5,411,945. The previous year was worse, with the budget over-run exceeding $800,000.

Now, if union members all vote “no” on the contract offer, then 6 large bargaining units, with thousands of members, could be operating without a new contract until June 2012 (maybe even longer). When unions go without a contract, one of the things the employer can do is stop collecting union dues out of the paychecks, and stop giving the money to the union. The employer can try to bankrupt and kill the union.

It is true that the other 6 bargaining units of County SEIU 221 members have a contract and their dues collections would be unaffected. The same is true with all the contracts SEIU 211 has with other employers in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Those other contracts represent only 20 percent of the Local’s membership, however. So, the County probably could not break the union financially.

It is highly likely that the International has told the local president to “sell” the pay cuts contract because (1) the International does not want to have to pay a lot of the local’s bills for the next year, and (2) the International does not want to spend money out of the strike fund (they’d rather save it for campaign spending for Democrats in 2012), and (3) there is a strong movement of members organizing to switch to a new independent union, with a certification election going on this month for the first bargaining unit that is trying to do it. If a new contract is signed, members working under that contract would be locked in to membership in SEIU until at least October of 2012. Without a new contract, those same members are free to petition for an election to switch unions, at any time.

Many members believe these are the reasons SEIU 221 President Eric Banks has suddenly stopped telling union members to FIGHT and to NOT put up with pay cuts.

With so many horror stories in the press in recent years about lying, cheating, thieving high level SEIU officials, it is little wonder members aren’t “buying” it this time. The National Labor Relations Board last month threw out an election involving 43,000 Kaiser workers represented by SEIU due to illegal conduct by SEIU and Kaiser. Former SEIU 6434 President Tyrone Freeman was recently caught stealing over $1 million dollars of union dues funds and rigging local union elections.  Numerous similar reports of SEIU corruption have been published in the past few years.

_______________

Here are the series of emails mentioned in the above post:

Here is the email sent by the County to thousands of workers:

 From: Dept of Human Resources

Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:26 PM

Subject: Ratification Process of the Tentative Agreement

 This message is being sent on behalf of SEIU Local 221 to members of CL, CM, CR, FS, HS and SW bargaining units. …

 To: SEIU Local 221 members in CL, CM, CR, FS, HS and SW

 From: SEIU Local 221 Bargaining Team

 As many of you know, the Bargaining Team has signed a tentative agreement (TA) with the County and will put the agreement out to the membership for a vote.   In the coming weeks each of us will need to make a very important decision: whether to accept and ratify the TA or to reject it.

 The terms and conditions of the TA are as follows:

Year 1

 $750 one-time monetary payment

 5% increase in health care flex benefits

 2% reduction in the pension offset

 Year 2

 1% one-time monetary payment calculated on base wage

 5% increase in health care flex benefits

 2% reduction in the pension offset

 And the following language changes:

 SW Eligibility Continuous Improvement Committee. A committee for members in the SW Unit who are working in the FRCs and other areas who are facing challenges with the Task Based Eligibility System and Business Process Reengineering.

 SW Labor Management. This agreement separates the labor management committee into two forums, one for the Social Workers, and one for the Human Services Specialist. Each group will receive two hours to discuss separate issues with some overlap where both groups will meet together to discuss common concerns.

 Labor Management. Labor Management meetings minutes will be distributed electronically to employees.

 Communications in the worksite. The County agreed to not unreasonably hold any communications to union representatives at the worksite

 Release Time Procedures. The County agreed to include reasonable travel time for release time.

 The TA must be ratified by our members by August 25, 2011. If ratified we will have a new 2 year agreement with the terms and conditions listed above.

 If we do not ratify the TA by August 25, 2011 the County has proposed the following offer:

  Year 1

 4% reduction in the pension offset

 Year 2

 2% one-time monetary payment calculated on base wage

 10% increase in health care flex benefits

 3% reduction in the pension offset

 And the language changes listed above.

 **THE BARGAINING TEAM DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE SECOND OFFER**

 If we do not ratify by August 25, 2011 the County can impose terms and conditions for up to one year that could include the elimination of the full 7% pension offset without any one time monetary payment or increases in health care flex benefits, or the other language changes agreed to.

 If the membership does not accept the TA we must be prepared to operate without a contract for up to one year.

 We must decide what we are willing to accept. Tomorrow, August 4, 2011, we will begin a discussion with our members in worksites, in locations around the county, and at the Local 221 offices to explain the offer. Members will be allowed to vote at these meetings and all day at the Local 221 offices during the voting period.

 The list of informational sessions where members can vote is attached and will be available on our website at www.seiu221.org. We are working with the County to reserve voting locations and we will be updating the list on our website as they are confirmed. A full copy of the Tentative Agreement is also available on the website for members to read.

 You must be a member to vote on the TA. If you are not a member of SEIU Local 221 you can join at any one of these meetings and be eligible to vote. You must have a form of picture ID ( County ID , driver’s license, passport, etc.) to vote.

 This is a very important decision that our members must carefully consider.

 Here is the email exchange between Monty Kroopkin and Susan Brazeau:

 From: Kroopkin, Monty

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:44 AM

To: Brazeau, Susan

Cc: Ekard, Walt

Subject: union access permission?

 Good morning Susan,

 I am writing you in my capacity as a union representative. I need to confirm that the County has given SEIU Local 221 permission to have union representatives go around in work areas, including going desk-to-desk during work time, passing out union literature and talking to workers about the current voting on a new union contract with the County.

 Paid union staff are now in my building doing exactly that, and I have reports that this is going on all over the County. Some workers are complaining already that they are being pressured about how to vote. I would not want to see any steward or other employees end up subject to discipline for assisting the paid union staff in this activity if it is not authorized by the County. And, of course, I would hate to see any unnecessary and expensive litigation result from this situation. Taxpayers certainly have much better things to spend money on.

 So, does the County authorize the activity?

 Thank you,

Monty Kroopkin,

SEIU Steward

 From: Brazeau, Susan

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:38 PM

To: Kroopkin, Monty

Subject: RE: union access permission?

 Monty:

 SEIU’s President has worked closely with the County to ensure adherence to the Union Access provisions of the various MOA’s. Nothing stated in your email is in violation of the MOA’s or past practice. Concerns regarding the conduct of union representatives should be communicated to Eric Banks.

 Susan M. Brazeau

County of San Diego

Labor Relations Manager

Monty Kroopkin is a shop steward for Local 221, and ran for president of the union in 2009. For further information, contact Monty Kroopkin, organizer for SMART*- mkroopkin@juno.com

*SMART is SEIU Member Activists for Reform Today

Recent news reports on County contracts, finances and pension fund:

County of San Diego wants its workers to take pay cuts of 7% to 14%

700 Protest County Board of Supervisors’ Unfair Labor Practices

A critical eye to San Diego County government, its workers, revenues, and services

Stand with County workers on Saturday, June 4th

REGION: County pension gains top $1B for fiscal year

REGION: Six labor unions reject county’s offer

REGION: County says budget $147 million in black so far

Members of Reform221 who work for the County of San Diego have been very busy in recent months.

In February 2011, 6 of SEIU 221′s 12 bargaining units with contracts with the County of San Diego rejected the County’s offer of a 2 year contract extension. The other 6 units ratified the extension. The extension modified the contracts to reduce retirement “offset” payments by 2.5 % over 2 years. Workers under the extension contracts will have to pay that amount more out of every paycheck.

The 6 units with open contracts have gone past the expiration dates of the contracts, and have exhausted the legal impasse procedure, including mediation. Members are currently voting on an even worse offer from the County. We will be talking more about it in the coming days.

To help people catch up on some of the developments these past few months, we’ve compiled some of the best local news and blog articles. Here they are:

County of San Diego wants its workers to take pay cuts of 7% to 14%

700 Protest County Board of Supervisors’ Unfair Labor Practices

A critical eye to San Diego County government, its workers, revenues, and services

Stand with County workers on Saturday, June 4th

REGION: County pension gains top $1B for fiscal year

REGION: Six labor unions reject county’s offer

REGION: County says budget $147 million in black so far

Dept of Labor Rules on Reform221 Election Complaints:

2009 Elections? Violations!
2010 Elections? No Violations!
Now What? Nothing!
.

On December 21, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its ruling on Reform221′s 2009 complaint and the related 2010 protest/complaint. Members of Reform221 had charged several violations of the federal law governing union elections. The charges stemmed from SEIU Local 221′s officer elections for local president and executive board seats in 2009 and from the “do-over” elections in 2010.

The 2010 elections were conducted under the supervision of the Department, as part of an out-of-court settlement agreement about the 2009 violations. In addition to the do-over elections, the settlement agreement provided that the Department reserved the right to sue the union in federal court for further remedies if new violations rendered the do-over elections flawed.  

The Dept’s December 21 statement of determination concludes:

“DETERMINED, that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Title IV of the

LMRDA occurred which may have affected the outcome of the election conducted by

Service Employees Local 221 on July 21, 2009, but that these violations have been

remedied by the new election, conducted in accordance with Title IV of the LMRDA,

under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, on September 21, 2010.

“Therefore, civil action under Section 402(b) of the LMRDA to set aside the election

conducted on July 21, 2009 is not warranted.”

On December 23, 2010, the Department issued its statement regarding the results of its investigation and the Dept’s reasons for its conclusions.

[To read the complete text of the December 21 and 23 documents, please click the links at the end of this article. Also, please see links to the Department's April 19, 2010 announcement of the settlement agreement, and the 2009 and 2010 Reform221 complaints.]

. 

 The Department believes violations of federal law did take place during the 2009 elections. Whether these violations were the result of incompetence, or negligence or illegal intent has not been stated by the Department. It is the Department’s policy to not disclose the information it obtains during an on-going investigation. However, now that the case is concluded, public release of the investigation records will hopefully reveal a clear picture of what actually happened.

The Department has ruled that the 2010 do-over elections “remedied” the violations they did find in the 2009 elections. Reform221′s candidate for Local 221 President, Monty Kroopkin, and other members of Reform221 disagree with the Department’s conclusions and reasoning about the 2010 do-over elections.  

Problems with the reasons for the ruling

Without seeing what they did in the investigation it is pretty hard to determine if some of the stated “reasons” are well founded. Certainly, for example, a mere denial by Lois Balfour that she attended worksite meetings in July or August is not an adequate basis for any conclusion and one would want to see that they actually looked at her daily appointments records. The Department makes no indication that they did so.

 Many of the DOL’s reasons are flawed. Some can be rejected on the basis of what we do already know (without seeing the DOL’s investigation reports). One glaring example is the Department’s statement:

 ”All observers were given fair and reasonable treatment in observing the four stations used to check voter eligibility. The use of the laptop stations failed to constitute a valid restriction for observers to reasonably observe or challenge ballots, as was evident by the successful challenge of Grillo’s ballot.”

.

This is simply incorrect.

We know that Mary Grillo’s ballot was a replacement ballot and that replacement ballots had return envelopes that lacked the bar code which all the regular ballots had on their return envelopes. It was only the lack of the envelope bar code which caused those few (a dozen or so) replacement ballot envelopes to be checked manually for voter eligibility, and it was only those few envelopes that observers could view (looking over the shoulder of the election official who was typing the names into a computer). All the regular ballots in their regular envelopes (about 970 ballots) were bar code scanned for a computer check of the voter’s eligibility and observers were NOT allowed to stand behind those scan workers to see each envelope. For the vast majority of ballots, observers were not allowed to view the name of the voter on the unopened ballot envelope and could not stand close enough to see the laptop screen to read the scanned name and were therefore not able to challenge the ballot of any known ineligible voter. This was clearly stated in the 2010 complaint and fully explained in witness interviews with DOL investigator Ed Oquendo. The DOL Election Supervisor, Seyi Olowolafe, was present during the September 21 ballot count, and is personally aware of these facts.

We also know that during the actual electronic scanning of ballots to tally the votes, it was impossible for observers to see the ballots before they were scanned. The only thing observers could see was the rapid flashing of candidate names and vote numbers on the tiny laptop screens. Those laptop screens were at least positioned to face the observers, unlike the laptops which were earlier used to scan the ballot envelopes to check the voter’s eligibility.

The Department goes on to contradict itself about “fair and reasonable treatment” of observers when it states:

“Because observers may not have been able to observe the votes on the ballots and how they were tallied, OLMS conducted a recount of the two closest races and observers were invited to attend. The OLMS recount found no significant irregularities in the balloting and deemed the ballot tally conducted by MRG on September 21,2010, as accurate.”

.

And contrary to the conclusion of “no significant irregularities” we know, from the October 13^th manual recount of all ballots for 2 of the 11 races in the 2010 election, that the ability of observers to actually see a ballot before it was counted made a difference. The final vote tallies for the 2 recounted races were DIFFERENT from the earlier scanned tallies. Both of the races chosen for the recount had been decided by only 3 votes, according to the optical scanner count on September 21. The manual recount showed one race to be decided by only ONE vote and the other race to be decided by 23 votes. The reason for the difference is that several ballots were challenged by observers during the manual recount due to voter errors or other problems which the scanning machines could not detect. Actual human visual observers, and an election official’s decision on the voter’s intent (if the ballot, say, had a vote crossed out and had a mark for the opposing candidate) or on the legality of the ballot made a difference.

With both of the 2 manually recounted races having final vote totals different from the original scanned totals, and with all 11 of the races decided (according to the scanned totals) by very narrow margins, it is reasonable to assume that a manual count of all 11 races might have changed the outcome for one or more of the races. FIVE of the races were decided by 19 votes or less. The margin of votes by which the other 6 races were decided, respectively, were 99, 83, 66, 51, 50, and 49. Therefore, the Department’s decision on the legal rights of observers is a disturbing error. And it was wrong for the Department to decide to not manually recount all 11 of the races.

Ironically, on January 11, 2011 the Department published a request in the Federal Register, for public comment to assist it in issuing guidelines for the use of “electronic voting systems” in union elections. “Electronic voting systems” is defined by the Department as NOT including electronic counting systems, e.g., optical scanners. The Department has not begun to address the obvious flaws in these electronic counting systems. The law requiring adequate safeguards for the fairness of the conduct of union elections, and the federal regulations which implement the law, has not caught up with the new technology for optical scanning of ballots. This technology, at least as far as the way it was used in the 2010 SEIU 221 elections, grossly violates the companion law that candidates have the right to observe the ballot envelopes and the actual ballots, before they are counted.

More problems with the reasoning

In its December 23 statement of reasons for the ruling, the Department says that no witness could confirm that incumbent slate observer (and Executive Board member) Kathy Griffee illegally handled ballots during the September 21 count. But Reform221 observer Roy Thompson was not interviewed by the Department. It was Thompson who reported the violation.

The December 23 statement also misrepresents one of the charges. Reform221 did not charge that the Department’s “…failure to use printing plates allowed Merriman River Group (MRG) to commit ballot fraud.” We charged that allowing the ballots to be computer-generated violated the law requiring “adequate safeguards”. The Department’s explanation of the safeguard steps it took to prevent any illegal printing and use of extra, unauthorized ballots, shows that they did make a serious effort. But the explanation does not demonstrate that the safeguards were “adequate”; that it was impossible to illegally print and use extra ballots, to “stuff” the ballot box. Historically, the use of illegally printed extra ballots has been a common type of union election law violation, in other unions. When it has been done in the past, elsewhere, it has been very hard to detect except when a significant number of members names showed up as having voted twice. That is why strict controls over the number of ballots printed, and strict accounting for all the ballots used and unused, is so important.

Regarding Reform221′s charge that union staff campaigned illegally while on paid time, the Department states:

“… The witnesses report that Banks slate literature was distributed at the conclusion of non-work site meetings. This would constitute incidental campaigning and is not a violation of the no campaigning at work site meeting rule.” And goes on to say that “… The apparent increase in work site meetings was a result of such efforts by the union to promote consistency in their union worksite meetings.”

.

If this were true, then why have the number of worksite meetings dropped off to the lower frequencies that were typical of the months prior to the union election period? A far better explanation for the increased number of meetings during the election period is that these meetings provided both opportunities for “exposure” for incumbent presidential candidate Eric Banks (and for his running mates) and provided increased opportunities for distribution of their campaign literature. And if that was the true, main purpose for having so many extra meetings during this period, then there was nothing “incidental” about the campaigning that they did before or after each meeting. And if it was not “incidental” then it was an illegal use of union funds (paid staff time) when any paid staff supporters of the incumbent slate did pass out campaign literature or solicit votes, while on paid time.

The Department does not say that any witnesses saw incumbent slate literature distributed before or after worksite meetings. There were many times over more of those meetings than the non-worksite meetings. By referring to “available witnesses” it appears that the Department did not bother to obtain the attendance lists for all of these worksite meetings, and did not interview most of the people who attended them.

It is important to keep in mind that the Department did issue an election rule to BAN all campaigning at worksite union meetings. The reason stated was that not all candidates could get the employer’s permission to enter all worksites, and that allowing campaigning at union worksite meetings would therefore violate the legal requirement of “adequate safeguards” to ensure a fair election. Paid union staff, including the incumbent presidential candidate, Eric Banks, can easily get employer permission to enter a worksite, per the terms of our contracts, to conduct normal union business. Reform221 charged that the large increase in the number of worksite meetings during the campaign period was NOT for normal union business and was intended to maximize opportunities for the incumbent slate to campaign at worksites where the Reform221 slate did not have equal access. Reform221 remains convinced that this charge was correct and that the incumbents illegal campaigning did affect the outcome of the elections in their favor.

The Department’s December 23 statement says that:

“… in regards to your allegation of candidates being denied the right to inspect the

membership list…at no time did any candidate request to review the list on any other day or time outside the regular business hours of the union.”

However, on July 21, 2010, and on behalf of all Reform221 candidates, Monty Kroopkin did ask federal Election Supervisor, Seyi Olowolafe, by email:

“Are we able to schedule hours after 5 PM on work days?” and “Are we able to schedule hours on weekends?”

The Department also asserts that “Local 221 President Eric Banks was not given access to the membership list as alleged.” Although the investigation may indeed have shown that no candidate, including Eric Banks, exercised the right to inspect the membership list during the 30 day period when it is allowed, that does not mean that President Banks had no access to the list. As President, and top staff director of the Local, Eric Banks at all times PRIOR to the election period (and at all times OTHER than during an election period) has complete free access to the membership list. His unequal access (compared to all the other candidates) is a fact, not an allegation.

Why is such access important? One obvious advantage is to learn which workers who are represented by the union are paying dues and eligible to vote. Only about 50% of the workers represented by Local 221 are currently eligible union voters. Focusing campaign efforts on eligible voters is a much better use of campaign resources.

This is by no means a complete critical review of the Department’s December 21 ruling and December 23 statement of reasons.

Court Challenge of the Department’s Ruling?

Reform221′s campaign attorneys, however, believe there is very little chance of any successful appeal of the Department’s ruling to the federal courts. The 1975 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 US 560, held that the DOL would be required in all Title IV protest cases to issue a Statement of Reasons whenever it decided to deny members’ complaints following its investigations and refusal to file a lawsuit to overturn a union officer election.  And those reasons, the Court held, would then be subject to judicial review under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the Administrative Procedure Act.

However, with perhaps one exception, no Bachowski lawsuit has been successful.  Since 1975, no court has ever ordered the DOL to prosecute a member’s Title IV election complaint.  Even in cases where members have managed to persuade courts that the DOL’s reasons didn’t make sense, the courts have invariably remanded the matter to the DOL to reconsider its position and either file a lawsuit voluntarily, or issue a new statement of reasons that would hold water, or make rational sense to the court.  And in every case, the DOL has merely cobbled together a new Statement of Reasons that the court ultimately found to be acceptable, even if just marginally entitled to the deference courts reserve for those empowered by Congress with “prosecutorial discretion.” 

Unless some major new evidence is uncovered, Reform221 will not seek a court order to overturn the Department’s ruling.

 Remedies or Reform from Within SEIU?

Reform221 has been informed by SEIU’s International Secretary-Treasurer, Eliseo Medina, that the union’s International Executive Board (IEB) will review Reform221′s original 2009 election complaint at the Board’s January 2011 meeting. The IEB has been asked to look at both the 2009 complaint and the related 2010 complaint, not only from the standpoint of legality. Hopefully the broader issues of ethical standards and a concern for what helps or hurts the health and strength of the union will also be considered.

The Department believes violations of federal law did take place during the 2009 elections. Whether these violations were the result of incompetence, or negligence or illegal intent has not been established. We union members have a right to know and to get to the bottom of it. How else can we intelligently adopt measures to avoid these problems in the future? We need the IEB to help make sure that this happens. The 2010 do-over Local elections were decided by extremely close margins. Questionable conduct by the incumbent Local President and his campaign team surely affected the outcome in their favor. The 2010 Local 221 elections should be set aside and done over, again. An atmosphere of continuing electoral corruption and unethical leadership behavior has not been remedied.

Hopefully, IEB will agree that our union needs to set higher standards than the minimal ones federal law provides for the fair conduct of democratic union elections.

We can discuss several examples, but let’s look at just one. It may be legal (at least in the eyes of the Department) for an incumbent Local President, while campaigning for re-election to use union funds to mail out pretty new membership cards to all the union members just a couple of weeks before the ballots are counted. But our union should not tolerate such crass vote-buying tactics (with union funds no less). It should be grounds for disqualification of the candidate, and/or removal from office, and/or expulsion from our union.

Hopefully, IEB will look at all of the examples; all of the record.

We want unorganized workers everywhere to look at our union and to want to join because they see us as champions of greater justice and democracy in society and in our workplaces. We want people to see that we practice what we preach, in the daily life of our own union. In recent years we have seen too much of the opposite, and the press has made sure that the public sees it too. This is not only hurting our union. It is hurting the whole labor movement.

If the IEB fails to adequately address these concerns, it is not the last word for review within SEIU. Decisions of the IEB can be appealed to the SEIU Convention. The next Convention will be held in 2012. However, the next Local 221 elections are also set for 2012. Although any action by the SEIU Convention would therefore be too late to have much usefulness, as far as fixing any improper results of the 2010 Local 221 elections, the issue of setting internal union rules and standards high enough to assure fair and clean union elections is much broader than any one election. Those issues will not be moot.

Meanwhile, Bosses Still Run Amuck and…

Local 221 still faces many serious problems. In the context of the current economic depression, the union remains poorly organized and poorly led. No functional communications vehicle has been put in place to even allow the thousands of union members to contact each other and talk about how to organize better and how to understand issues better. Only a member-run union, organized from the bottom up, has real credibility and power. The union remains a “top-down” model, with vast numbers of the members distrustful of the people on top. The people on top are not doing what it takes to educate the membership and to empower the membership to organize intelligently, from the bottom up.

Reform221 members will continue to work for a strong and democratic union.

During the course of the Local 221 elections these past 2 years, Reform221 has played a major role in getting rid of some of the worst Local officers. Former Local 221 President Sharon-Frances Moore resigned in January of 2010, just before it was announced that DOL was forcing do-over elections to throw out the results of the 2009 elections. Several of Moore’s cronies on the 2009 Executive Board did not run again in the 2010 do-over elections. It did little to inspire confidence that the 2009 Board appointed Moore’s Chief of Staff, Eric Banks, to be Interim President, and that he then chose to run for election in the 2010 do-over elections. But, to his credit, Banks recruited some respected former Board members, along with new activists, as running mates. His other running mates were incumbents of Moore’s 2009 Board, but of those, a few had actually run on a slate that opposed Moore’s slate.

Four members of Reform221 did win seats on the current Board. Altogether, the current Board is better than the 2009 Board, and much better than the Provisional Board that was in power from 2007 to 2009 under Moore. (That Board was unelected — appointed by former SEIU International President Andy Stern when he railroaded through a statewide vote to merge parts of 24 Locals into only 4 new “mega-locals.”). Most of the current Board members are people willing to talk with the union’s membership, including members who support Reform221. The Board members understand how close the 2010 elections were. All the Local’s activists understand that the membership split almost 50-50 on these elections. We all know that unless we can focus on the issues that we can all agree on, that very little will get done.

Currently, the San Diego County contract campaign will affect 80% of the members of Local 221. In December, Reform221 played a leading and very vocal role in getting our union’s county bargaining team to reject a “take aways” proposal from the County that was dressed up as a fake “contract extension” offer. ” In January, the County again made the same offer, and the bargaining team voted to send the offer to a vote of the whole County membership of the union. That vote will take place at the end of February. Reform221 members, and others, will campaign for a “no” vote and for no concessions in our next contract.

Putting “the movement” back into the labor movement is our best hope of reversing the billionaires’ efforts to drive down the whole world’s standard of living to “the bottom” (except for the rich, of course). Union leaders who want to keep doing union business the same weak and ineffective ways, while the numbers of workers in unions has drastically declined in recent decades, are only aiding the billionaires and standing in the way of the changes we need to make, to survive.

Which side are you on? Which side are you on?

For Solidarity, Rooted Deep in Union Democracy,

Reform221
 

Link to DOL determination of December 21, 2010

Link to DOL Statement of Reasons, December 23, 2010

Revised Settlement Notice of DOL & 221 for New Elections 19April10

Election Protest, October 1, 2010

.

Link to webpage with all case documents
http://reform221.com/?page_id=829

We won all of our seats if it was up to the County Division ballots.  The County Division is 80% of the Local’s membership. But when the ballots from the 5 other divisions of the Local were counted, there was a narrow lead for the incumbents, overall. So we lost all 7 of the at-large seats that they could affect and won 4 county-only e-board seats out of the 11 contested. We found Washington DC, SEIU International vote from Mary Grillo, former Executive Director of Local 2028, voting at our local, and learned that Eliseo Medina, SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer, also reportedly voted. Neither of them are members of Local 221. Neither had any right to vote. This was a very close election with a lot of strange flaws. I guess we will wait and see what the DOL investigator finds.

President Eric Banks 522/423
VP Alberto Parra 477/460
Secretary  Martha 513/430
Treasurer David Garcias 525/470
Political C. Chair Michael Dobbins 487/461
Mem Org. Chair Julayne Gath 503/437
Econ/Jus Chair Johari Lewis 476/465
County Srv Div Felicia Boyd 342/339
County Gen Div Cornelius Hill 366/315
County Gen Div Robert Larson 365/319
County Gen Div Cheryl Bright 367/317

FROM LA TIMES Sept 2, 2010

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/former-seiu-leader-sentenced-for-fruad.html

A former leader of one of California’s most powerful unions was sentenced to prison Thursday for fraud, federal authorities said.

Alejandro Stephens, 66, who headed the Service Employees International Union, Local 660, in Los Angeles, was sentenced to four months in prison and three months of home confinement, the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles said. The local he headed has since merged into a larger local.

Check out this article. I hope that the media can help us uncover this election fraud that continued today.

U.S. DEPT OF LABOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED
New Elections to be Held, August 20 – September 21

Mail ballots will go out August 20 and ballots will be counted on September 21, 2010.

SEIU 221 has made an out-of-court agreement to hold new elections for Local President and for 11 other  executive board and officer positions. (Four of the 16 board seats were uncontested in 2009, and will not be included in the new elections.) This averts the possibility of a long and expensive trial, and of a court order to nullify the results of the July 2009 elections, but has the same result: new elections run under government supervision, NOT run by the incumbent union officers who got caught stealing the first election. Reform221 has qualified a team (“slate”) of 11 candidates for the ballot. All members of SEIU 221 who want to Take Back Our Union, end the corruption, and build a union that WORKS, are invited to join REFORM221 and help us campaign.

We ask our supporters to vote for the FULL list of 11 SEIU Reform 221 candidates. We need a majority of the 16 votes on the Executive Board in order to succeed in implementing our reform program! Check the “slate” box on your ballot! seiu 221 is the seiu 211 is the seiu 221 oo sithe seiu 221 the men at 221 is 221 and seiu 221 gets new election new election at seiu 221 reform 221 seiu

Federal Complaint Filed to Overturn Election

Chronology of Legal Challenge of Union Election

ELECTION PROTEST FILED WITH UNION ELECTION OFFICIALS, JULY 27, 2009
Full text of Reform221 election protest SEIU 221 Election Protest

PROTEST OFFICER RULES AGAINST ALL 14 CHARGES, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
See the ruling at Protest Officer Report and Decision

APPEAL FILED TO SEIU PRESIDENT, ANDY STERN, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
Full text of the appeal and related documents are at Appeal of Election Protest to SEIU International President
and Cover letter for Appeal to Stern 
and see also material at http://reform221.com/?page_id=829

COMPLAINT FILED WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, NOVEMBER 16, 2009
With no action on our appeal by the SEIU President Stern, Reform221 took our legal challenge to the federal government. See at cover letter — complaint to DOL
and see materials at http://reform221.com/?page_id=829

VOTE REFORM SLATE!!