UNITE HERE dissidents to join SEIU

I see this only as a good thing.  If the two sides cannot get along, it is like a marriage where it only hurts everyone involved.  It's time for both sides to go their separate ways.

I dont' want to get caught in the crossfire.

I don't know what things are like in UNITE HERE but SEIU is one of the worst unions in the US or Canada. If you're going to leave your union and join another one shouldn't you at least join one that's decent?

What makes SEIU "one of the worst" aka Mycroft?

Do you have some personal experience or know someone who has?

I think SEIU's been a little too eager to put "growth" above all goals, and their shitshow with Puerto Rican teachers is a prime example of that.

But I also think some of their efforts to organize - for example, the justice for janitors effort - have been inspiring and effective.

Labour matters in the USA.  Amazing.  Its headline news!  SEIU knows how to organize.  Its very impressive.

Bad contracts. Sweetheart deals with management in exchange for certification (see Lousiana's nursing home sector for instance)

Interesting article.

This is a US article. We don't have the same labour framework in Canada, and neutrality agreements aren't nearly as necessary here -- a distinction that Stern and his employees and acolytes have brushed aside. So we end up with the same US-based, cynical, wheeling-dealing, behind-closed-doors unionism, unnecessarily, even knowing ahead of time all the legitimacy and sustainability problems that are going to defeat those unions and drag the rest of us down with them.

I would love to see a copy of the affiliation agreement between Workers United and SEIU as referenced below in the Daily news article. I find it hard to believe that the ongoing interference by SEIU could be perceived as anyting other than raiding. I'm curious as to how this will play out in Canada.

"Stern's union will provide legal, staff and financial assistance to defend Workers United "against any and all challenge from other labor organizations, including any challenge arising from its affiliation with SEIU," the agreement states.

That alone could cost millions, because both factions of UNITE HERE are fighting in federal court over control of the Amalgamated Bank, the only union-owned bank in the country.

In addition, the affiliation agreement allows Workers United to pay as little as $7.65 in monthly per capita dues to SEIU over the next four years. Since the splinter locals were paying a whopping $16.05 in monthly per capita to UNITE HERE, the discount alone will save the new group more than $60 million."

United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen and well known labor mediator Larry Fox have both led mediation sessions between the two sides of the dispute, and now agree that a split is the only workable solution.

President Hansen proposed a split in the most recent mediation session he held, and Fox indicated that a divorce was the only possible resolution when he ended his mediation back in November.  

Teamster's President James Hoffa also called for an end to the merger in a recent letter to UNITE HERE leadership.

How do the remaining textile workers from the former UNITE feel about this split, and the union's ongoing push into the service/hospitality industry? I understand the union leadership's desire to build a "base" that can't be easily outsourced. But for the workers themselves, I always wondered if they would be better off joining an industrial union with a stronger focus on trade policy and government procurement issues. Like the Steelworkers, for example. Textile workers would fit well with the union's work in related jurisdictions like paper and forestry, rubber, manufacturing, chemicals, metals and minerals. Seems to me that would bette help them hang onto the jobs they actually have. But as far as I can tell, that option wasn't even considered?

Can I just point out also that Joe Hansen and Jimmy Hoffa are probably not the most credible opinions to go to on union democracy.

A copy of the 'Affiliation' agreement between SEIU and the UNITE HERE splinter group is available at:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_seiu.html

It will be interesting to see how this flies with the CLC Constitution and whether SEIU will be in violation due to their interference and subsequent affiliation agreement with the UNITE HERE faction.

stop raiding you really seem to have a cult of the personality thing for the individual leaders in this thing as it is always Raynor this, Stern and Wilhelm that.  I have to say, it really increases the annoyance factor lots of us in the rest of the labour movement have for the soap opera some folks want to make this whole thing into.

robbie_dee's question about whether textile workers will find a home in a service sector union is one of the more interesting ones in the two threads on this subject.  

It seems in Canada that the mixing of manufacturing and service sector workers has been going on for a while now, much more so than in the US. I'm thinking, for instance, of the many Air Canada flight attendants who are in the CAW or the hotel workers who are represented by the Steelworkers, Autoworkers or Machinists.  Obviously Vivienne who I see is now commenting here, is a service worker and seems more comfortable with the former UNITE folks than her previous service sector union HERE.  I think that tells us a lot. This stuff is more about servicing and empowering the members than anything else.

There is real strength in members from different industries coming together in one union but it needs to be a union that works for all members.  Obviously, in the case of UNITE HERE, that didn't happen.  

Willow I'm not sure what bubble you live in but my years working in and around the labour movement has opened my eyes to a lot of old guys making deals behind closed doors on behalf of their members. I find it hard to believe that many, who have been following this dispute, don't perceive this as a top-down arrangement absent of real member involvement.  Leadership develop a strategy then roll it out to the members. Granted not all unions operate in this manner but I believe it is quite prevalent within the labour movement. Do you really think that this was a comprehensive educational and consultative process with the members of SEIU or UNITE HERE?

As far as cult of personality leaders - by virtually all-accounts Andy Stern stand heads above the rest as far ramming programs and policies down members throats without adequate consultation. To deny the ego of Stern and the lack of member input into many of his recent interfering activities speaks volumes and I'm surprised that he escapes your criticism - perhaps he will be your future employer and if so I understand why you would be reticent to question his commitment to democratic trade unionism.

3to1 makes an interesting point and willow I would hope at the very least that you would be interested in determining the outcome of the vote.

I thought the original UNITE-HERE merger was at odds with the expressed position of the CTW unions regarding jurisdiction and building industrial "density." Rather, the UNITE-HERE mergers appeared to be based more on financial considerations and perceived political and cultural compatibility between the two unions respective leadership and staffs. I'm not necessarily saying its a bad thing, I'm just noting the discrepancy between the words and the actions. Now, almost five years later, the hoped-for "compatibility" between the UNITE and HERE groups has clearly not happened. If we are going to have a "redo" one would think that the jurisdictional issues would be raised again, but it appears they still take a backseat to other considerations.

Frankly, though, I think the whole situation is just sad and counterproductive for working people everywhere.  This isn't really a dispute about workers' interests or the best way to pursue them. This is a dispute about power, personalities and money. I wish everyone involved could step back, take a deep breath, and remind themselves why they became union activists in the first place. Then get back together with the other side and negotiate a fair resolution. 

My thoughts? You need to back up your allegations with some sort of evidence. If there has been a court case or "testimony" you should preferrably provide links to it if its available online, if not then at least provide some more information as to the location of the court proceeding, parties, court and case name or number. If there's been an internal union proceeding you should indicate when and where that occurred, before what union body, and whether a transcript or report of that proceeding has been published anywhere.

I've never heard of "pink sheeting" and my own google search of the term has turned up nothing besides what you've posted here. It's obviously a disturbing allegation but without any more substantiation it's hard to know what to make of it. I imagine the owners/moderators of this website may have some concerns about the posting of this information, too, at least unless and until you are able to back it up.

@ Jumping Janice

Nice attempt at hijacking a discussion thread. Jumping Janice and Vivienne, I would like you both to answer 3 to 1 Majority's recent questions above, instead of steering into this diversionary topic. 

Interestingly, though, you're unwittingly hitting on the subject of SEIU's interference in UNITE HERE's internal democratic processes. I'm pretty sure the NYC address listed for the 'stop pink sheeting' campaign is the same address affiliated with SEIU's attack leaflets that were distributed in UNITE HERE properties. So why would SEIU be so interested in UNITE HERE's internal staff issues? (rhetorical question, obviously)

It is cynical and dishonest to use the issue of 'pink sheeting' for political purposes.

This thread is about SEIU and UNITE HERE. If you want to start a separate thread about pink sheeting, I invite you to do so.

Vivienne don"t you think something of this magnitude should be decided by the members through a referendum? Didn't members elect delegates to represent them at the UNITE HERE General Council?

Vivienne:

You speak of union democracy, so please help us all understand how democracy works in your local union and its new international union.

How many delegates from your particular workplace went to Philadelphia?

How many of your fellow union members work in your workplace?

How did the workers in your workplace select the delegate(s) to the Workers United convention in Philadelphia? 

When did they vote on delegates to a convention in Philadelphia? 

How many workers in your workplace voted?

What were the results of the vote?  Did any workers run unsuccessfully against the winners?

3 to 1 Majority obviously from my last post I must have explained myself enough that you got the Union democracy out of it so let me add a little to that.......

 As a member, I feel I was informed about the situation.  I had a say in sending delegates to speak on my behalf.  I had the chance to debate and discuss the issue with members across the province and then the chance to go back and inform my membership.  This NEVER happened when I was a part of HERE and didn't even know that people working 20 minutes down the road were my fellow members.  I was never told about meetings let alone given a chance to elect delegates, debate issues, get educated and make up my mind for myself.  That is the difference between HERE and Workers United.  One cares about involving MEMBERS and the other only cared about getting our dues MONEY.

Jumping Janice:

The elected leader of the former-UNITE, now SEIU/Workers United, Ontario Council is Alex Dagg.  She is also the #2 elected officer of the Workers United international union in the U.S. and Canada.

Was she a rank-and-file member before holding elected office?

Or is she just another university-educated "professional staff" of the sort you say "hijack the union from its own members"?

What brand of coffee does she drink?

Vivenne and Jumping Janice:

We haven't heard from you two in over two days.  Surely there must be answers to my questions. 

I answered your question 3 to 1 Majority. You chose the words Union Democracy from what I ANSWERED. I don't feel the need to explain any more then I have.....HERE is not democratic......Unite, since HERE Local 75 left us hanging without representation has been up front and HONEST with us. We have informed  our members of everything......Haven't had any dealings with SEIU so I wouldn't really know if they're democratic.....

Jumping Janice is correct in her statement that HERE is a cult....I experienced the cult atmosphere last April at their membership meeting...Remember we took a Local 75 member to this meeting. By the way he wasn't informed of his own membership meeting. I also experienced the cult structure in February of this year at a meeting. Paul Clifford pointed to each person he wanted to speak and yes he had more people there then the few he LET speak. They went to the mike with memo's in their hands and in fact one actually said "I'm going off script here..." We from the Dissidents got up on our own and spoke at the mike no-one pointed to anyone and NOONE had to go off SCRIPT.

The fact still remains HERE started this whole mess with their greed which they put before any member.....Proven by the fact they're in court fighting for assets they didn't bring into the OLD MERGER.....Instead of moving on and representing their members.

By the way I am a rank and file member, I do work and not Monday to Friday. I am a steward and do have issues to deal with at work....Maybe that'll explain why I haven't posted in two days. Something else I shouldn't have had to explain.

Congratulations to Vivienne and her local on their first organizing victory for their new union - Workers United.

http://www.workersunitedunion.org/content/overwhelming-community-support-brings-victory-st-catharines-workers

I know in an earlier thread on this subject, there were people criticizing Viv and her local for the I Stand with Diane campaign and others who came out and talked about how important this type of campaign was for workers in Ontario. 

I say congrats to the Workers United for sticking with this campaign.  It was clear from the previous post that the HERE side would never have tried to organize this place in the first place, let alone run this kind of creative campaign to draw attention to the real problems with this province's labour legislation after the worker was fired.  Good work Vivienne to you and your local and I am thrilled for Diane, whose bravery should be an inspiration to all of us in the labour movement.

Vivienne:

Duck and dodge all you like, but you still have not answered basic questions to support your claim that your union is democratic.

Which of your members voted to join SEIU?

When did they elect delegates to go to the convention in Philadelphia?

Simple questions, simple answers.

 3to1 Majority here is my direct quote above. You ask

Vivienne:

Duck and dodge all you like, but you still have not answered basic questions to support your claim that your union is democratic.

Once again your words "your union is democratic". As I said obviously I explained it well enough for you to call our union democratic. Why then do I have to get into the numbers if YOU already STATED OUR UNION IS DEMOCRATIC???????

 If you were a part of the faction that left UNITE HERE you'd know all the technicalities.....Obviously you're not. Why are you having a problem understanding the MERGER is over. Is it because HERE had a 3 to Unite 1 Majority and you believe majority rules???? HERE was in it for the money and are proving it by going after assets that they didn't build but acquired in a merger.

If as I've said it wasn't about the money HERE should be moving on. Getting on with representing their members, organizing the unorganized. After all Worker's United is and has.

 I wrote

3 to 1 Majority and TW I don't quite understand why I have to explain how, I do believe, Unions work but we as members elected delegates to represent us. These delegates went to Philidelphia to speak for us. There a committee was formed. They proposed authorizing the Executive Board to vote on a decision to affiliate. The delegates speaking for the MEMBERS approved it.

This is, since I've only been a unionized worker since July 1999 with HERE Local 75 for 5 of those years before we mergered with Unite, as I explained I DO BELIEVE UNIONS WORK.....

From that you replied

Vivienne:

You speak of union democracy, so please help us all understand how democracy works in your local union and its new international union. As I said before I obviously explained it well enough for YOU to see IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS even if you don't know the numbers.

As for your comment "We are all getting a bit suspicious: what is hiding behind all your talk of democracy? All my talk of democracy, the only time I've used the word democracy was repeating what you in fact said......You keep getting the democratic process out of my answers which none have used the word democratic or democracy. I said it was how I believed unions work.......

You are the only one that keeps asking me that.....Although I imagine TW will get involved now and possibly some new rabblers.

Just some advice to Vivienne.  When they are trying to debate you on the technicalities, it means they've lost.  I've yet to hear from a real rank and file member of UNITE HERE on this site who wants this union to stay together and who thinks this unions members should stay together.  3to1, stopraiding etc. are caught up in the details of votes etc., cause they don't want to face the facts this merger is over.

I think time would be much better spent for both these union looking forward, discussing interesting and creative campaigns to protect workers who organize like Vivienne's local has done with its I Stand With Diane Campaign. 

In organizing, success matters and trying matters too since we all know in this movement that we don't win all the battles.  But sitting around, conspiring in secrecy for years and years, waiting for some perfect moment to organize, telling workers they aren't ready yet to organize and other stuff I've read since this fight became public, well, that is just silly.  You can call it deep organizing or whatever as some of the HERE types have on these threads, but to workers who want to organize, it probably just feels like they are being ignored. 

Jumping Janice:

The harder you dig, the farther into your own hole you get.

If you are so offended that former-HERE Local 75 President Paul Clifford is, in your words, "a white, rich man, a yale graduate, who has never worked a day in his life," why do you follow former-UNITE/WU leaders Alex Dagg and Bruce Raynor?

Dagg and Raynor are at least as white, rich and educated as Clifford, are they not?

How do you think Ontario hotel and other service workers who were formerly professional doctors, lawyers, biologists, etc. in their home countries feel when you slander educated people?

You say neither UNITE, HERE and SEIU are democratic: there goes one of the major "reasons" for UNITE's disaffiliation.

You say UNITE left because leaders like Clifford are white, educated, etc., but so are UNITE leaders Dagg and Raynor: there goes another "reason".

Round, and round, and round...

Randy Shaw on the Stern/Raynor assault on UNITE HERE:

UNITE President Bruce Raynor is using his union treasury to wage a destructive campaign of character assassination and disinformation against one of San Francisco’s -- and the nation’s -- most progressive institutions, the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE)...

Just as the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand plunged allied countries into World War I, so has Raynor’s frustrated ambitions brought SEIU and HERE into open warfare and destroyed the Change to Win Labor Federation. While Stern insists that SEIU is not engaged in any attacks against HERE, Wilhelm filed anti-raiding charges with Change to Win against SEIU on April 3 on the grounds that said union was “interfering with the collective bargaining relationships of UNITEHERE members.”

Jumping Jance:

What's easier for you to believe, truth or spin?

The judge did not rule for the Raynor secessionists; he ruled that he would hear the case instead of making a preliminary judgment against the secessionists.

Below are exerpts of the U.S. court transcript from the hearing that you described as "an embarrassing defeat" for UNITE HERE:

--------------------

UNITE HERE Lawyer: "...they (the Raynor group) are saying to members 'come with us and we will bring you the property as well..."
 
Judge Daniels: "Well, I can say to them right here and now that that has not been established and they could be wrong."

--------------------
 
Judge Daniels: "So it's not your position that you own the building (275 7th Ave.)?"
 
Secessionists' Attorney: "No your Honor, UNITE HERE has title to the building..."

--------------------
 
Judge Daniels: "What makes sense I'm sure and what makes sense to you and everybody else  is that if I am a member of an organization and I am participating jointly in the joint activity of that organization...if I decide to disassociate myself from that organization, I don't get to pick and choose what I think is individually my property and take it with me; that I can move on if I want, but everybody doesn't get to pick the fruit off the tree and walk away with what they think is their portion. That's usually not the way any constitution works. If that was true, we wouldn't have fought a civil war."

-------------------- 
 
UNITE HERE Attorney: "Your Honor, I think it would be fair...that the plaintiffs (Raynor) not be allowed to sell or otherwise encumber any of their real estate holdings...and the bank and the insurance company..."
 
Judge Daniels: "...there should be no encumbrance of real estate. There should be no attempted sale of real estate. There should be no extraordinary transfer of use of assets without prior application, notice and application, to both the Court and the other side (our side) and application and approval by the Court."
 
Secessionists' Attorney: "In the normal course of events, my clients probably do sell buildings from time to time. They probably do even encumber buildings.
 
Judge Daniels: "Well it's not going to happen."

Secessionists' Attorney: "I understand. I understand."
 
Judge Daniels: " ...I'm not limiting that to real estate...your client has to know very clearly that I will reconsider ... strong injunctive relief and other sanctions if  they take some action that we find out later is inconsistent with our  understanding ..."

HERE is a bunch of bank robbers, theives and dirt bags.

HERE is full of corruption and stolen money, stolen elections, and stolen pink sheets.

This disrespect is unacceptable, Brother.

Triciamarie:

You don't find "bank robbers, thieves and dirt bags" from Jumping Janice disrespectful?

Are you monitoring everyone's speech, or just the speech of those of us questioning the SEIUNITE secessionist partisans?

Wouldn't it be nice if Jumping Janice would contribute to this discussion something other than low-road, anti-union accusations - moronic or not?

Triciamarie:

Fair enough.  I take back my characterization of Jumping Janice's comments as "moronic." I will let Jumping Janice's other readers draw their own conclusions about Jumping Janice's intelligence.

However, are Jumping Janice's recent postings anything other than low-road insults and mostly anti-union in nature?

Have you seen Jumping Janice respond with any substance yet?

Have you noticed the common go-to responses we see when Jumping Janice's arguments are challenged?

Here is a short list of the greatest hits: HERE is a cult!  HERE is racist!  HERE is classist!  HERE are thieves!  HERE is corrupt!

No substance, just circles - and lots of exclamation marks.

Vivienne:

Did you ever notice that your own story is an example of why the UNITE HERE merger worked exactly as it was supposed to?

The merger was intended to combine the various resources, strengths and capacities of UNITE and HERE.  Members from each former union joined local or regional affiliates of the other to gain power.  For example, former-UNITE laundry workers in Las Vegas joined the powerful former-HERE casino union and won the best contracts ever, including free family medical insurance (a crucial bargaining issue in the U.S.) for the first time.

Let's see how the merger worked in your case:

Before the merger you were in a HERE Local 75 workplace: Fort Erie Racetrack.  Then, at some point following the merger, your shop joined the newly-created (post-merger) Niagara Region UNITE HERE Local 2347.  And this UNITE HERE Local 2347 was represented by staff from the former UNITE, correct?

You clearly feel that you and your coworkers are stronger in this new arrangement, but why is that an argument that the merger did not work?  Does it not instead show that the merger benefited you greatly?

Before the merger, you were in an HERE local that, you have argued, was too focused on the GTA to do a good enough job in your region.  After the merger, you became part of a new UNITE HERE Niagara Region local that worked better for you.

If the merger of UNITE and HERE had never happened, you would still today be in a union (HERE Local 75) that you think was not working for you and your co-workers.

So your logic seems to be as follows: before the merger you had a bad union, the merger gave you a good union, therefore the merger did not work and should be terminated.  What?

Las Vegas laundry workers may have nothing nice to say about their former-UNITE leadership that was not as strong as the former-HERE casino union, but that certainly would not give them an argument to terminate the merger.  Obviously the merger made them stronger.

I am sure other readers are as confused as I am.

I feel compelled to jump in and request another fact check from Vivienne...

Vivienne, you can't just post any old thing that pops in your head and portray it as fact. For instance:

• You claim Paul Clifford and Local 75 "decided the merger was over." Are you referring to the merger of UNITE and HERE? If so, you are completely misinforming readers of this forum. To set the record straight, Local 75 sought to disaffiliate from the Ontario Council of UNITE HERE, not from the International Union of UNITE HERE. This may seem like a nit-picky detail, but it's pretty important. At no point has Local 75 ever advocated for the end of the merger of UNITE and HERE. I defy you to find any evidence supporting anything to the contrary (yes, Vivienne - the burden of proof is on you when you make wild claims like the ones above).
• I'm not sure why you're obsessed with the cheers and chanting at Local 75 meetings, but I've been to my fair share and I've never once heard anyone cheer for HERE to the exclusion of UNITE. Not once. Again, you can't make something true merely by typing it on a keyboard (although I guess if you repeat a lie often enough...).
• Over and over again, you've argued that workers are better off with the new (illegally founded) union Workers United. What makes you say so? I've seen a number of collective agreements bargained by the former UNITE side, and I gotta say it doesn't look good for those workers. Several jobs with wages just barely above minimum wage, little to no workload protection, no protection from sub-contracting - the list goes on. What becomes clear is a long and sorry pattern of concessionary bargaining.

By the way, Vivienne, Willow and Jumping Janice, you still haven't answered any questions regarding how Workers United affiliated with SEIU (the actual topic of this discussion thread). How many UNITE HERE Ontario Council workers voted to disaffiliate from the International Union of UNITE HERE? What were those votes like? Were they announced in advance? What were the actual numerical results (rather than percentage results)?

Then, how many 'Workers United' members in Ontario voted to affiliate with SEIU?

We're all still waiting for answers to these important questions...

Unionist:

Be careful about waiving the Canadian flag and dismissing this debate as a rivalry between American business unions.  The lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadian and American workers are at stake here.

The future of the North American labour movement is in the balance.  One model of trade unionism - the top-down, deal-making variety best (i.e., worst) represented by the Hargrove-era CAW here and Stern's SEIU in the U.S. - has run into a strong, democratic model of unionism that believes in building active, rank-and-file committees on the shop floor.

The Hargrove/Stern model is bankrupt and, with little to no capacity to fight on the ground, resorts to growth/organizing agreements with employers at the expense of workers' living standards and rights (e.g. Magna in Canada).

In the committee model, workers fight the bosses hard and win not only good contract standards but, in the best cases, organizing rights for their non-union sisters and brothers, too.  Following this model, in 2006-7 negotiations Toronto hotel workers in UNITE HERE (former HERE) Local 75 rallied, picketed, struck and were locked out for both higher contract standards and the right to organize their brothers and sisters in new hotels built by their employers.

Generally speaking, the former UNITE side of UNITE HERE follows the Hargrove/Stern model, whereas the former HERE side builds strong rank-and-file committees.

When the former-UNITE minority faced the prospect of losing democratic control of UNITE HERE at the upcoming International Union convention, they began a campaign - sponsored by Stern's SEIU - to rip apart and destroy UNITE HERE.  It is only in that context that issues of assets, real estate, etc. have arisen.

Importantly, the debate is taking place within SEIU as well.  One of its California locals - United Healthcare West (UHW) - opposed Stern's efforts to secure organizing agreements from UHW's largest employers at the expense of contract standards for existing members.  Stern responded by placing UHW in trusteeship and removing the elected leadership.  The full fiasco is documented daily at perezstern.blogspot.com.  (Fortunately, Canadian SEIU locals appear to have no appetite for Sterns top-down model.)

Jumping Janice:

Now that we all know you are quite skilled at using the cut-and-paste function on your computer, do you really think that an SEIUNITE/Workers United press release answers any of the many, many unanswered questions some of us have raised here?

Talking points or facts?

When did the Canadian rank-and-file members of UNITE HERE vote to join Workers United/SEIUNITE?

Would somebody, ANYBODY, please answer the questions asked repeatedly (see below) about the dis/reaffiliation. We're talking about the fundamentals of trade union democracy - did ALL members have a right to vote to dissafiliate and then later vote to affiliate with SEIU?  Was it one person-one vote? What were the results? I'll settle for just the Ontario numbers as this seems to be the base of some of those representing the WU-SEIU members. The unwillingness to answer these basic questions with any degree of information only continues to affirm a widely held notion that this was a backroom deal determined by a powerful few and that attempts after the fact (petitions etc) were generated to try and give it some sort of legitimacy.

"By the way, Vivienne, Willow and Jumping Janice, you still haven't answered any questions regarding how Workers United affiliated with SEIU (the actual topic of this discussion thread). How many UNITE HERE Ontario Council workers voted to disaffiliate from the International Union of UNITE HERE? What were those votes like? Were they announced in advance? What were the actual numerical results (rather than percentage results)?Then, how many 'Workers United' members in Ontario voted to affiliate with SEIU? We're all still waiting for answers to these important questions..." TW

You know winny pillow, your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me since I recently read an article about how UNITE HERE Local 75, was trying to organize in Mississauga. If the UNITE HERE folks wouldn't go public with a campaign until they had a "strong committee" able to withstand the Boss's inevitable attack, why did UNITE HERE Local 75 go public with a big, glitzy demo with only staff people acting as spokespeople?  Why go public with an organizing campaign before even filing or having 40% signed on cards as this article indicates.  Quotes from the Mississauga News below to back up this.

"More than 100 hotel workers and supporters from across the GTA rallied last week at Hotel Novotel Mississauga to support employees' efforts to organize a union."

"UNITE HERE Local 75 research analyst J.J. Fueser said it can be an intimidating process to unionize.
She said UNITE HERE and other hotel workers were there to support Novotel workers by reminding them that it's their legal right to unionize."

"Speaking on behalf of Mississauga Novotel workers, UNITE HERE Local 75 representative Jay Yerex added they're also fighting for job security to sustain families and improve the standard of living. "

"If 40 per cent of workers sign union cards, they'll apply for certification to the Ontario Labour Relations Board."

Sounds like staff at UNITE HERE Local 75 recognize organizing is hard, workers are intimidated and are using the media and a public campaign to try and organize this hotel in Missisauga.  Where is your derision for UNITE HERE Local 75, its President Paul Clifford and the man he reports to, UNITE HERE Hospitality President John Wilhelm?

Nowhere of course, because you don't have any winny pillow, do you?  Because you are an HERE partisan in this dispute and aren't below siding with union-busting employers to try and score some kind of point against Workers United.  Shame on you winny pillow. If your behaviour is any example of the HERE partisans in UNITE HERE, I can't blame the Workers United members for voting to leave your union.  

As folks have said before on this topic here on Babble, the I Stand With Diane campaign was a creative campaign fighting back against employer intimidation, allowed for by the bad legal system we now have here in Ontario for organizing unions.  Trade unionists in Ontario should be looking to these types of campaigns for inspiration in their organizing campaigns.  Obviously UNITE HERE Local 75 finally realized this and is taking steps to adopt parts of the Workers United campaign.  Congratulations to them for recognizing the importance of the Workers United "I Stand with Diane" campaign and best of luck to the workers in Mississauga trying to organize.

To those from the local that ran this campaign, like Viv, the HERE partisans like winny pillow aren't trade unionists.  They are something, but in my opinion, no brother or sister in this movement would ever use an employer campaign of intimidation against workers trying to organize to bolster their petty, internal, partisan campaign.  They deserve no more of our attention and are obviously defeated in their pathetic, mud-slinging desperation.  Keep up the good work and thanks for inspiring us.

Daniel Denvir, Paul Abowd, "Workers United finds members divided," Labor Notes, May 2009.

Read the rest

It appears the scam by WU-SEIU is unravelling and the truth is surfacing. No wonder they tried to break away so quickly and so undemocratically. Those that don't think this was masterminded in some backroom by an elite few months and months ago are kidding themselves. And those that think the WU-SEIU process is a shining example of union democracy at work is drinking from the same poisened chalice.

I would still love to hear the results from the Ontario votes. Somehow I suspect they won't be forthcoming. It's easier to try and distract with misinformation than to produce results of non-existent votes. In the words of brother Cockburn, "And they call it democracy." (Those unfamiliar with the song should note that it is sang sarcastically).

 From robbie dee's post on the Labour Notes Article above:

"In the stampede to leave, Philadelphia workers say the democratic process has been trampled, and many resent being consulted about the fate of their union, after the fact. "This was decided over a month ago by Lynne Fox, before we were ever asked," Hamod said."

And to quote our old friend and WU-SEIU champion - hammerhead:

"Real analysis, such as it is, is coming from people like Harold Myerson and non-partisan organizations like Labornotes."

From: Bruce Raynor, UNITE HERE President

Union democracy is under attack in Southern California. Earlier this month, after members of UNITE HERE Local 11 sent me a letter asking for my help, I went to meet with them.

Before the members, who work in hotels, stadiums and convention centers, had a chance to ask any questions, paid Local 11 staff stormed the meeting and called their own members ‘traitors' and told them they did not care what they had to say. The actions of Local 11 staff showed a shocking disregard for their own members. After the staff realized they could not intimidate their members into silence they left and the members finally had an opportunity to voice their concerns.

Members expressed their opposition to bylaw changes proposed by the staff that runs Local 11. The changes, put to a vote this week, would raise member dues by $4 within one year and would enable the local to use strike fund money for nearly any purpose. Local 11 members know their staff has been sent to other states (and to laundries that are already organized) as part of an internal fight and they did not want the strike fund they sacrificed to build to be wasted on a political fight. The members were fearful that Local 11 staff, rather than members, would control the vote (completed yesterday) and they described a history of staff efforts to silence members who disagree with them.

Members who oppose the bylaw changes said they have been intimidated and followed during their lunch breaks by Local 11 staff. When one member spoke out against the changes at a meeting, Local 11 staff stopped translating the member's comments so members who do not speak English would not know what he was saying. A shop steward elected by his co-workers was removed by Local 11 staff without a member revote. Disneyland hotel members were never given the opportunity to have a ratification vote on their contract. In general, the members described a local run in an entirely undemocratic fashion.

Sadly, this is nothing new in Local 11. Members have not directly voted for the Local 11 leadership in many years. Even when they voted to change the bylaws to merge Local 681 into Local 11, they say they were not told that in so doing, they were changing the by-laws to make Tom Walsh President and Ada Brieco Secretary-Treasurer.

Below is a blog post written by Cesar Mejia, a member of Local 11:

http://unionreview.com/unite-here%21-local-11-needs-get-its-priorities-straight

In the near future, thousands of hotel and airport workers in Los Angeles are heading toward contract negotiations. Disneyland hotel workers have not had a contract for more than a year. If the dues increase and raiding of the strike fund were really going to be used to support Local 11 members in these difficult fights, I believe, few would object, but Local 11 has squandered millions and members have little to show for it.

Former HERE leaders continue to preach a great deal of democracy while practicing none of it. They talk about one union and yet they seem bent on taxing union members in one part of the country in order to fund fights elsewhere.

Jumping Janice:

When in doubt, say something mindless (HERE is a CULT!  HERE are bank robbers).

Or, when confronted with the reality that SEIUNITE/Workers Divided is sham, invoke previous boss-driven raids against UNITE HERE (Sheraton Gateway and Park Hyatt) to distract everyone.

Anti-union nonsense seems to be working well for your leader, Bruce Raynor, and his patron, Andy Stern, so why not follow in their footsteps?

Why take the time to explain that the Canadian UNITE HERE rank-and-file never voted to leave UNITE HERE or to join SEIUNITE/Workers Divided?

That would be pretty hard to justify to the Canadian labour movement, wouldn't it?

I have been reading all the posts and have been to several sites regarding the Fort Erie Racetrack.  I would like to ask Vivienne a question.  Do YOU treat all the workers at the race track in an equal and unbiased manner? 

3 to 1 majority....You really are sounding like HERE staff.....Firstly we were locked out the day before our strike date. Quite honestly asked worker's today about the one day strikes that you mention and none of us remember any more then talking about it. Never mind that management threatened us "do it again and we'll lock you out" No co-worker's I asked today remember doing two, one day strike actions. Not everyone was at work to ask. AND NO I'M NOT SAYING 1 DIDN'T HAPPEN...I'm saying we don't remember a 1 day but we do remember 13 days of no money except 1 member getting $40....HERE Local 75 got at least 1 cheque from another union and the money some customer's left at the gate.....But I'm quite sure Frank or Lana can tell you since that seems to be where your info is coming from....Remembering that you quoted our bosses. In fact our HR still says we were on strike not locked out..........We noticed a drastic drop in patrons when we returned to work right after the lock out...That maybe the bosses famous line but we members noticed the buisness decline right after our return....That was April 2004.....That being 5 years ago...Long before the economy took a nose dive....

"And now you tell us that UNITE leadership accepted a 3-year wage freeze because "that is what the company's lawyer wanted"?  (See your post #85"

What I actually said was "Our next contract was a 1 year with a wage freeze and that is what the company's lawyer wanted for the second contract 1 year wage freeze and roll over....We instead got a 2 year with a wage freeze but our benefits topped up......Are we suppose to be ashamed of this????????????????????????

Did HERE Local 75 ever stop fighting because "that is what the company's lawyer wanted"? That's a question YOU SHOULD ASK CNH WORKER'S......But our negotiating team isn't quite sure what Frank and the company's lawyer talked about when they'd leave the room together for a smoke????? ......Unite Here Local 2347 didn't accept what the company's lawyer wanted which was a second ONE YEAR ROLL OVER AND WAGE FREEZE......

Since Frank or Lana gave you this information did you ask what a MOCK STRIKE was because SGCC is still asking what it was?????We can't answer because we don't know and Frank was their rep as well????

Then you jump ahead 5 years with this comment     "Are you next going to tell us all that the CAW and auto workers wages are to blame for the Big Three car companies' current troubles?" Talk about diverting the conversation.....

No I have never even thought that the CAW worker's are responsible for the financial woes of the Big Three...That I think was proven to be company greed......Private jets used to beg for money while taking home 21 million a year income....

As for the Review article......The company couldn't come out and blame the UNION'S for the lay off's or decline in buisness because we took wage freezes wouldn't have looked to good to blame us....Once again you've jumped ahead 5 years.....Alot more has happened through 5 years and the last couple of years the economy took a complete nose dive.....

Next you say "Are you really claiming that the HERE-led strike/lockout action killed the business?" I said as front line worker's WE NOTICED A DRASTIC DECLINE IN BUISNESS AFTER OUR RETURN TO WORK....

Don't you find it strange that your blind rage at HERE causes you to take a more anti-union line than your multi-millionaire casino bosses? I don't work for multi-millionaire CASINO BOSSES.....I work for Nordic Gaming. The OLG would be the multi-million dollar bosses of OLG....Nordic Gaming was taking in multi millions back when HERE was our union....This money was their cut of the slot money........Which has declined over the years as well.....Remembering the lock out was 5 years ago.

REARDON NIAGARA This blog is about Unite Here Dissidents to join SEIU....Since you just joined yesterday and you posted at 8 am this morning

I have been reading all the posts and have been to several sites regarding the Fort Erie Racetrack.  I would like to ask Vivienne a question.  Do YOU treat all the workers at the race track in an equal and unbiased manner? 

What does your post have to do with this topic??????????????????????? You've been to several sites regarding Fort Erie Racetrack Why?????????

I represent members WHEN THEY COME TO ME in an equal and unbiased manner...........I am a steward doing a thankless job that not to many people want even although we are entitled to 8 stewards we have 3 working and one on leave........Not that this has anything to do with the TOPIC OF DISCUSSION........Which once again is Unite Here dissidents to join SEIU......And yes once again we are affiliated and once again isn't it better to affiliate then decertify...... 

Vivienne:

So my mistake was in thinking you accepted a 3-year wage freeze whereas you really only accepted a 2-year wage freeze because "that was what the company's lawyer wanted"?

As a shop steward, did you recommend that your members accept the 2-year wage freeze or instead recommend that they reject the wage freeze and continue fighting for a better contract?

What did Alex Dagg and/or other UNITE officials recommend to the rank-and-file members?

Did you, Alex Dagg or others from UNITE share with them that "that was what the company wanted"?

What is the position of SEIUNITE/Workers Divided on company proposals that hospitality workers (hotel workers, gaming workers or food service workers) accept wage freezes or wage cuts during the current recession?

With all the "leadership training" and "educationals" that UNITE paid for, how come 4 of your 8 stewards positions are vacant?

Why are your members not confident enough in their union (SEIUNITE/Workers Divided) to step up into steward positions?

Who's next on the Stern offensive?  

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/article_db7f7599-f32f-571f-a419-f08efd6bec80.html

Vivienne:

Although you never responded to me or Reardon Niagara, I was wondering if you had seen the new video about SEIU's history of raiding (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6mKXyFeALw)?

Did you and your co-workers know that you are simply the latest victims of Andy Stern's assault on union democracy?

Did Andy Stern come up to Ontario and speak to all of your union sisters and brothers about joining SEIU or just to a select few of your partisans?

In a letter sent to John Wilhelm today from Andy Stern and Bruce Raynor they indicate that if Wilhelm and UNITE HERE agree to their terms on the division of assets and units then they will cease raiding, stop contacting UNITE HERE members, stop interfering in UNITE HERE's new organizing campaigns and stop disrupting existing employer relations. Am I missing something here? Is this not a clear admission of their sins? This is straight from the horses' mouths. Is there any justification of these actions? The impact of these sinister activities (in the name of "assets" and "units" where the Union has been reduced to the corporate language of property and ownership) upon the existing members of UNITE HERE must be immeasureable. Where is the widespread condemnation by the labour movement of these despicable acts waged by SEIU? Strategies and tactics that are are more akin to the types of campaigns waged by some of the worst employers out there.

While I am probably more sympathetic to the remaining UNITE HERE leadership's position than to that of the dissidents, where I agree most with Randy Shaw is that (1) this ongoing dispute is tremendously harmful to the workers involved, and generally counterproductive to the movement as a whole, and (2) the two sides should try to get a deal done to resolve this as quickly as possible. I don't know whether the SEIU's proposal for binding arbitration is the right way to go, but it should definitely be considered.

It is a sad state of affairs and I feel truly sorry for the members who have been unwittingly led down this garden path by Stern and Raynor. I think it is hitting home for many of them now and they realize that they have been duped or were never even properly consulted to begin with.

I never posted on any boards before but I must say some thing here! This is my side and it IS the TRUTH!  

I am a PROUD member of UNITE HERE. I have been a member (of HERE before they merged with UNITE) for over 25 + years (and my Mother well before that!). I'm from Southwestern PA.

When I started as a member, our Local Union was GREAT!

After the merger happened we notice that UNITE, not HERE, came in to run things along with the PA Joint Board, and everything seemed off. As time went on, things changed. Still, all in all, it too wasn't bad. 

In 2005 our leadership had changed and took a turn for the worse. Our Local President was forced to retire. The Vice-Pres. was forced to resigned, and so on...

Next thing we (meaning all the members of our local) knew was there was meetings with the PA joint Board, telling us that that they are re-organizing our local union. That we'll have an election in 6 months to elect a New Local Union President and so on.

Well, the 6 months came and went. So did the years! We had bad organization, actually we had none! No one to help us! Our Union Stewards were afraid to help (we think they were threatened or told not to help) and we didn't know why, although they did the best they could. Some of us questioned things but wasn't told much or wasn't told the truth. Some of us were just "MUSHROOMS" if you what I mean.

We never seen any more of the PA Joint Board. (So we Thought!)

Suddenly, in March 0f this year, 2009, We got little purple "Post-cards" to vote "Yes". That's all it said! "VOTE YES!" Nothing else! Just to vote "YES!" Talk about being confused! We didn't even know what the vote was for or when!

Next thing we knew the PA Joint Board's business agent was at our shop tell us "If you don't vote yes, you won't get into the new Arena! We NEED to merge with SEIU to have a BIGGER union. BIGGER IS BETTER YOU KNOW!"

He scared allot of members into believing this! I told our members that he can't promise something that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

You see our contract is up next year and the new arena isn't going to be finished until the following year. There's no way to know if we are in the new arena or not. At least not until next year after the contract is signed (hopefully)!

As for the SEIU part, I told them that bigger is not really better, and that I didn't know much about that union, but I would find out more.

Within a weeks time the PA Joint Board was back and held a vote.

About 51 out of 275 people (that's just at the arena), had stopped to vote. The vote was 28 to 23 (I personally know about 25 people who voted "NO!").  They refused to tell us which way the vote went.

Not even a week later in was in the local city paper stating that we are now "WORKERS UNITED-SEIU!" They told the press before they told us! REALLY NICE OF THEM!

They claimed that there was such a huge turn out for this vote to merge. Bigger than any other time in voting history for voting on anything with this union.

At this point, a lot of us started to ask questions about the voting process, and the "New union". Things we found out we didn't like. We found out it was an illegal vote and voting process. Then we found out that our shop (the Arena) wasn't the only shop out of our local (hotels and casinos) that wasn't happy and was lied too also. We found out that it was like that every where in UNITE HERE's local and International offices! WOW!

We found out it was Raynor, his Appointed Joint Boards and let's not forget good Ole' STERN! The Union Raider himself! 

Raynor Stated that we all (ALL OF PA) wanted to joint SEIU and form a new union called Workers United-SEIU!

WRONG!

Southwestern PA is not on board with you!

After all this is over, said and done, does anyone else believe that Stern is going to (try and) take over Workers United? And/Or Raynor going to try and Dethrone Stern and take over SEIU?

Looking back on somethings that went on through the years, It's just seems like Raynor and/or Stern had this planned from the beginning of the merger of UNITE and HERE. What do you think?

At the Local Office...

Last month, a lot of us JUST found out that we had an election, 3 YEARS AGO, for our Local Union Officers

Some of us met for the first time our ELECTED local Union President last month in a meeting, just recently we met the Vice-Pres. and some board members.

They would be GREAT LEADERS if the PA Joint Board would let them!

Three years ago, right after the Local Union Election, the Joint Board threw our ELECTED officers out of the offices and told them they were NOT in charge and their titles are voided!

 All we know is before we merged with UNITE, there were better contracts and we KNEW what was going on! 

There are great, decent people within the UNITE union and that they know what's going on is wrong. 

It's not their fault by any means, but Raynor's and Stern's "RAID!"

ACTUALLY PEOPLE THIS NOT A "RAID!"

BUT ....

It is, has been, and always will be very UNWANTED! It's very physical and very emotional! Scary! Confusion! Anger! Lies! It has been FORCED upon us!

--this Ladies and Gentlemen is called a...

...."RAPE!" Yes RAPE!

I thought that OUR UNION was to ELECT the people of our choice not be FORCED to have some one be APPOINTED! We don't want people appointed for us!

I thought that OUR UNION had a choice at VOTING on OUR contracts not FORCED to take what ever is handled by the Joint Board or who ever, without OUR best interest. We want the Freedom of CHOICE!

WE ARE PROUD UNION MEMBERS OF UNITE HERE!

THERE IS ONLY ONE UNITE HERE! WE ARE UNITE HERE!

WE ARE STAYING UNITE HERE!!!