PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

SEIU Members Fight for Control of Their Union in Philadelphia
by United for Power Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 11:32 AM

***

FORWARDED FROM: unitedforpower@comcast.net

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release June 20th, 2003

WHO: SEIU Local 36 United For Power, a group of Local 36 members
fighting for democracy and member control of their union

WHAT: Members demand accountability in upcoming contract negotiations

The SEIU Local 36 United For Power Committee, a group of Local 36
members fighting for democracy and member control of their union are
concerned about upcoming negotiations with residential building
owners. The negotiations were written about in a Philadelphia Weekly
article that came out this week. Members are frightend of a repeat of
negotiations with office building owners which five members of the
negotiating committee say were “railroaded through.”

“We do not want more negotiations like the one he just did with our
health and welfare benefits. If there’s a way we will stop him,” says
United For Power Committee member Elba Mercado, a janitor in the PECO
building.

In May, SEIU Local 36, a union for office building janitors and
engineers in Philadelphia, concluded early negotiations for the BOLR
master contract that covers most large office buildings in Center City
Philadelphia. The settlement included new premiums for dependent care,
a reduced dental plan, and larger copays for medicines. In early June,
a group of five members from the negotiating committee wrote a letter
to complain about the negotiation and ratification process which they
described as a “dog and pony show and rubber stamp designed to keep
[Trustee Wyatt Closs] from having to take responsibility for your
decisions.” Copies of the letter and petitions calling for an election
of officers are being distributed by the Local 36 United For Power
Committee, a group of rank and file members concerned about democracy
in the local.

The local was placed under international trusteeship last year after a
group of militant shop stewards and organizing staff began running the
local office during a dispute over the presidency of the local. Under
the trusteeship, the constitution and by-laws of the local have been
dissolved and Trustee Wyatt Closs the union’s international
headquarters has been given complete authority over the local.

Last week, members of the negotiating committee who signed the letter of
complaint and their supporters began suffering harassment from union
staff when trying to file grievances. When Gina Reyes, a janitor in the
Centre Square building, was at the union attempting to deal with sexual
harassment in her building, the meeting was interrupted by Education
Director Barbara Rocky. Barbara Rocky grabbed Gina Reyes by the neck
and squeezed it and said, “I was very disappointed to see your
signature on that letter.” When Monica Roberts was waiting outside her
building for a grievance paper, she was surrounded by organizer Liz
Oakley and members from across town who interrogated Monica about the
letter and insinuated that office cleaners were too stupid to write it.
Delbert Franklin, an outspoken member, was screamed at by a member who
supports the trustee.

The Local 36 United For Power Committee is asking concerned members of
the community to call SEIU President Andy Stern at 1-800-424-8592 and
to email Trustee Wyatt Closs at clossw@seiu.org to demand that SEIU
respect the opinions of its members. The members are demanding the
right to be represented by their union without being harassed for their
opinions.

Below is a copy of an open letter to Trustee Wyatt Closs which was
signed by five union members from the BOLR Contract Negotiating Team:

Mr. Wyatt Closs
Trustee
SEIU Local #36
Suite 200
24 South 15th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102


Dear Mr. Closs:

The purpose of this letter is to state reasons for which I did not sign
the 2003 BOLR contract, and to also draw your official attention to the
fact that the said document, if presented as is, will not serve the
purpose for which it was intended - that the essence of our two-week
deliberations were fruitless.

In the first place, the Bargaining Team was initially informed that the
bargaining process was in fact, a negotiated settlement of SEIU Local
#36’s Health Benefit Funds, which were sinking. And that something
needed to be done immediately to avoid the funds being depleted before
the life of the present contract, which expires October 15, 2003. There
is no reason to have forced the negotiations to finish in two weeks
when we have five months before the former agreement expires. The
contract was railroaded through so fast that the committee was not
given ample time to really examine and think about what was in the
contract.

The committee was not really listened to, in that, discussions were
being held behind closed doors. The meetings that were held in private,
behind our backs, between you and management superseded our decisions.
This is not only a betrayal of the confidence that we had in you: many
members of the committee feel that they were put through an elaborate
con game.

For example, there was the quick resolution of the Martin Luther King
Jr.holiday, The committee resolved that we would not give in on our
demand to have Martin Luther King Day as a paid holiday. We did not
agree to give up one personal day for Martin Luther King Day; we had
firmly agreed that we wanted Martin Luther King Day as a normal paid
holiday. The abrupt position taken by you to convert one of the
personal days into Dr. King’s holiday confused many members who were
given no opportunity to defend the committee’s position. The
introduction of the holiday commencing November 2005 is of no use,
because it does not take effect until February 2006, after we will have
been paying more for our health care for three years.

The process for the ratification was suspicious. Notices for the
ratification meeting were not sent out in time for many members to
attend. Members who tried to vote while on their lunch break from
working that day were not allowed to vote, because they did not have
time to watch the video first. The way the ballot was worded left out
the possible option of returning to the negotiating table and scared
members into voting for the agreement.

The truth is that we were not involved in the contract negotiations at
all. You had already made the decisions. The committee was formed as a
rubber stamp and as a dog and pony show to protect you from having to
take responsibility for your decisions.

In another development, I want to touch on the matter of moving the
office. If the health fund is near bankruptcy, why is the union
spending tens of thousands of dollars to move the office to a location
that is less accessible to public transportation? That is our money. I
want to know how much is being spent on movers, architects,
construction, and rent. It is also my understanding that the union pays
a huge amount of money for your living quarters in Rittenhouse Square.
Would it not be better for the union were you to relocate to a less
expensive apartment, since in fact the union does not have sufficient
funds to facilitate its day to day activities. Is it possible for
members to know the full account of all the monies spent by the
trusteeship, since in fact this is the members’ money? These questions
are being raised to allude to the fact that the cry of the trustees
that the union and heath fund are broke might be crocodile tears. If
this is not true, please answer the above mentioned inquiries.

The bottom line is that the members need to have an election so that
they can elect chosen representatives who really listen to and work for
them.

Yours truly,
Montgomery Saah
Monica Roberts
Gina Reyes
Ray Hernandez
Luiz Hurtado
Members, 2003 BOLR Negotiating Committee

add your comments

SEIU FOUND GUILTY of VIOLATING SECURITY OFFICERS RIGHTS
by Security Labor News Monday, Jun. 23, 2003 at 7:17 PM

Tug of War Two unions fight over ill-paid, demoralized security officers As standoffs between workers and management broiled on the docks, the baseball diamonds, and the airport assembly lines in June, a high-profile labor conflict is simmering in the background.

Two rival unions are fighting over who represents 450 employees of Northwest Protective Services, the Seattle area�s only unionized security guards. It�s one part of a nationwide battle to represent security professionals working all across the United States of America.

On one end of the rope, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) better known as the � JANITORS UNION� and on the other end, the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) known as America�s Union for Security Professionals, the largest Security Police Union in the United States Today representing United States Court Officers, officers working at NASA Space Center, Boeing, Nuclear Facilities, Disneyland, and many other high profile locations.

In the middle, is a demoralized and poorly paid workforce with an important job to do. In the year since the airplane highjackings that destroyed New York�s Twin Towers, security needs at airport checkpoints have been getting a lot of attention. Security forces act as the first line of defense in office complexes like the ones destroyed on September 11. Yet labor activists say that security firms and public regulators have a dismal record in hiring and retaining a safe, satisfied, and skilled workforce. Many security guards are not properly trained based on minimal licensing and training requirements placed on security firms. The low standards and poor wages contribute to frequent job changes. Industry turnover is as high as 300 percent � that is, every guard hired leaves in an average of four months.

Jono Schaffer, vice president of SEIU Local 24/7, which continues to claim to represent the Seattle officers illegally, knows what could happen when you continue to collect dues while failing to represent its officers guarding a building. He�s been escorted kindly out of office buildings before, in the course of making contact with janitorial staff during an organizing campaign. One time, though, hostile guards threw him to the ground and spit in his face. One �did a knee-drop� on Jono Schaffer�s, head, and face and broke his nose, and cracked a rib. He was a bloody mess and a real embarrassment after he was beat up in front of his members.

Schaffer�s organization claims to represent 5,000 security officers nationwide. In March, Local 24/7 absorbed the smaller guard-only union that had represented Northwest Protective employees, the International Union of Security Officers (IUSO). According to SEIU, IUSO�s members voted in favor of the merger. They are now part of the nation�s largest union with 1.5 million members � janitors, food service employees, and nurses. That makes SEIU a so-called �mixed union.� Under Section 9(b)3 of the National Labor Relations Act, federal mediators can�t force an employer to recognize its workers� desire to join a union in which the fox watches the hen house � that is, where guards and employees are on the same team.

�How do you oversee the janitors, and see that they abide by the rules, if they�re part of the same union?� says David Hickey, president of the Michigan-based SPFPA.

Hickey claims that his union has gathered enough support to supplant SEIU�s representation of Northwest�s officers. According to papers filed with the National Labor Relations Board, SPFPA provided evidence of the switch to Northwest Protective in late June of 2002, just before the employees� contract was set to expire. Northwest Protective CEO Jim Stumbles agreed to hand over the collective bargaining contract to SPFPA. But when SEIU threatened to picket Northwest�s work sites, Stumbles backed out on SPFPA and extended SEIU�s agreement under duress and continued SEIU threats.

For its part, SEIU officials counter that Northwest Protective treated SPFPA preferentially: the employer promised to extend the contract terms to the new union before knowing whether a majority of the workforce had logged its preference. However on June 10th 2003 Administrative Law Judge, Jay R. Pollack had ruled in favor of SPFPA after it had filed charges against both the employer and the SEIU at the National Labor Relations Board in Seattle.


CONCLUSION or LAW

The Respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 24/7 International Union of Security Officers, its officers, agents and representatives, Shall:

1. Cease and desist from

(a) Accepting recognition from Northwest Protective Services, Inc., as the bargaining representative of Employer�s security guard employees at a time when the Union - SEIU does not represent a majority of employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.

(b) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Employers� security employees.

(c) Discriminating against or attempting to cause Employer to discriminate against the unit employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, by maintaining or implementing the terms of the union-security and dues-deduction authorization provisions of the collective- bargaining agreement executed on June 30, 2002.

(d) Discriminating against or attempting to cause Employer to discriminate against the unit employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,by maintaining or implementing the terms of the union-security and dues-deduction authorization provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement executed on June 30, 2002.

(e) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

(f) Threatening to picket Employer, where an object of such picketing is to force or require that employer to recognize or bargain with Union-SEIU as the representative of its employees, at a time when the Union-SEIU is not the majority representative, and another labor organization has been lawfully recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative.

2. Take the following action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

(a) The SEIU shall reimburse all former and present security guard unit employees for all dues and fees withheld from their pay together with interest from July 1, 2002, until such time as the Union -SEIU cease giving effect to the June 30, 2002 collective bargaining agreement.

The order also included the Employer to immediately recognize and bargain in good faith with the International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our security guard unit employees and if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement.

Adding Insult to the Injury SPFPA reaffirmed its majority status by calling for a card check conducted by the Federal Mediation Service on Friday June 20th.

Steve Maritas, Organizing Director for SPFPA, stated that �what SEIU had done was illegal and it has now been proven in a court of law and by a new card check conducted by the Federal Mediation Service. I had personally signed up the majority of officers working for Northwest twice after IUSO/SEIU, had failed to represent these low paid officers who are in desperate need of health and sick day benefits, not to mention retirement benefits like our members enjoy.

Today justice was severed and the SEIU has mud on its face. They are not true Unionists fighting for workers rights stated Maritas, SEIU don�t care for its members, their only interest is in collecting dues from its 1.5 million members. This is evident by the fact most of the 5000 or so security officers SEIU claims to represent, averages about $8.50 per hour with no health benefits and very low wage increases.

The IUSO affiliated with SEIU in order to gain clout and better represent its members. SEIU President Andrew Stern has a five-year goal of organizing the security industry. SEIU is the third-largest donor to politicians seeking office. This year, its locals, members, and political action committees donated $3.5 million to political campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

SPFPA.ORG

add your comments

SEIU THREATENS ITS MEMBERS
by SEIU MEMBERS FOR A DEMOCRATIC UNION Tuesday, Jun. 24, 2003 at 1:11 PM
415-740-7462

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for threatening San Francisco janitors that they would lose all their benefits if the janitors were no longer represented by SEIU. The threats, made in handbills and at meetings, were aimed to discourage janitors from signing petitions to decertify SEIU and form their own independent union. The NLRB complaint alleges that SEIU is "restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the (National Labor Relations) Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act."

SEIU�s threats began when San Francisco janitors, who were members of the recently trusteed SEIU Local 87, petitioned the NLRB to establish a new independent union, the United Service Workers for Democracy (USWD87) and to disaffiliate from the SEIU.

In further action, the NLRB issued another complaint against San Francisco�s largest janitorial contractor, Able Building Maintenance, for "rendering assistance and support" to SEIU "by directing its employees to meet, during work time, with representatives of SEIU International" in its campaign against USWD. The board alleges that Able Building Maintenance "has been rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act." Complaints against other employers for similar violations are expected to follow soon.

Earlier this year, the SEIU International took control over Local 87 to force its San Francisco members to merge into the Los Angeles-based SEIU Local 1877. Despite clear opposition to the merger by San Francisco members, SEIU forged ahead with the merger plans creating the biggest challenge to continued SEIU leadership among building service workers in northern California in the last 50 years. Local 87 represents more than 3,500 mostly Latino, Asian and Arabic janitors who clean office buildings in downtown San Francisco.

In an attempt to whitewash the merger and pit members against each other, SEIU is pushing for a 14 member "Advisory Council " to provide input about the merger. According to the international, "The merger has already been approved by the International Executive Board of SEIU and there will be no vote on this issue at SEIU Local 87 � The discussion is not about whether or not there will be a merger but rather about how it will happen."

Amazingly, composition of the Advisory Council is segregated by racial quotas: 4 Latinos, 2 Chinese, 2 Arab and 4 "non-designated" workers.

"This Advisory Council is a sham, and worse, they shamefully tried to divide the members by race," complained one Local 87 member. "The trusteeship took away our local bylaws and our rights to vote, and now they want our advice on how to cut our own throats."

Since SEIU imposed a trusteeship on Local 87 its members have seen their drug benefits reduced, workload increased, hiring control taken away by the employers and the loss of work to non-union companies while SEIU International stands by doing nothing.

add your comments