Tell a friend about this article
Previous Article: Maine shipbuilders protest vs. IAM trusteeship
Next Article: Opposition wins most delegates from big SEIU local
Please give what you can.
AUDHome--> Union Democracy Review--> Articles
SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!
From the May-June 2008 issue of Union Democracy Review #173
On the eve of the SEIU Convention
For over a year, the line pursued by Andy Stern, SEIU president and supported with near unanimity by the union’s top leadership, has come under attack by Sal Rosselli, president of the 140,000-member United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW-W). The dispute, openly or by implication, will dominate the union's quadrennial convention which begins in Puerto Rico on June 1.
Intellectuals "concerned" over SEIU democracy
In an open letter to Stern, on May 1, later published by Rosselli's UHW-W as a half-page ad in The New York Times, 101 pro-union writers, authors, and educators expressed "deep concern" over what they saw as Stern's threat to impose a trusteeship over UHW-W. Sal Rosselli, has been the only major SEIU local leader publicly critical of Stern. "Some of us," the signers wrote, "have longstanding ties to SEIU and have done research, writing, or labor education work involving its members, organizers, and local leaders…. Putting UHW under trusteeship would … be viewed by many as a sign that internal democracy is not valued or tolerated within the SEIU."
Their concern had been triggered by a letter to Rosselli from Stern demanding that he reply to charges leveled against him by unnamed union members. He was ordered to reply within ten days; relevant documents had to be supplied in four. The peremptory nature of the demand and the insistence upon a swift reply made it apparent that the local faced a trusteeship threat and that its 140 delegates might be barred from the SEIU convention. The wording of the charges underlined their serious nature: breaches of fiduciary duty, interfering with members' job security, local financial irregularities. It appeared likely to the signers that Stern was about to resolve the dispute and end the threat by using the authoritarian powers of his presidency to repress this annoying critic.
The May 1 open letter was the most recent expression of a growing disquietude over the state of democracy inside the SEIU under Stern's stewardship. He could overlook those earlier signs, but not this one. Stern replied promptly on May 2, apparently more hurt than angry: "I appreciate your recent letter…. We look forward to continued dialogue" etc. etc. But he found "puzzling" their talk of a trusteeship. It was a mild response; the Times ad had not yet appeared. Presumably the joint letter could be shrugged off as a polite expression of private concern. But after the ad appeared and a broad public had been alerted, the tone of reply got edgy. Two SEIU vice presidents wrote on May 5, "When we first received your letter we did not understand that it would.… run as an ad in... The New York Times." After a few paragraphs expressing indignation, came the familiar last refuge against criticism, the suggestion that the letter-ad came close to strike-breaking. "Finally it was particularly troubling that the ad appeared on the same day of a long planned mass mobilization in New York” in connection with an eight-week nursing home strike.
Then came a blockbuster protest letter signed by 47 top leaders of the SEIU, including Dennis Rivera, now head of the SEIU healthcare unit, and George Gresham who replaced him as head of Local 1199 in New York. "… your letter sent without facts is contributing to the spread of misinformation and misunderstanding about what is happening inside SEIU."
All three SEIU complaints sidestepped the key issue that provoked the letter from those protesting 101 academics: the threat of a trusteeship over Rosselli's UHW-W. Stern was "puzzled" over their concentration on the "one issue" of trusteeship without explicitly renouncing the threat. Without themselves disavowing the threatened trusteeship, the two vice presidents denounced those who deplored it.
The 47 top SEIU leaders dealt explicitly with the trusteeship issue, only to dismiss it as a fabrication. They wrote: "On the specific issue you raise, we agree that trusteeships should never be used to limit democratic debate in any union. In the case of SEIU, your letter addressed a straw man since no such retaliatory trusteeship is under consideration nor would we ever approve one." However, their disclaimer, lacking all credibility, seems simply tailored for popular consumption by a credulous public.
Here are 47 experienced labor leaders, hardened practitioners in the realities of union power. In suggesting that they cannot possibly take their own words seriously, we pay due respect for their talents. The signs of impending trusteeship were all there. The peremptory demand for a speedy reply to seven charges, all serious accusations of dereliction of basic union responsibilities ---and mostly obviously contrived. If not the prelude to a trusteeship, what was the point? What, incidentally, has been the disposition of those charges, charges which are the union equivalent of treason? The 47 leaders surely know what's what, but they also know that in the SEIU, as part of the ruling regime, they must stand united and speak with one voice. Public profession is not necessarily identical to private conviction.
They write that they would never approve a repressive trusteeship. Perhaps. Still, some of them must have misgivings. They may never have a chance to vote. In their own bailiwick, each is a strong, respected, prideful leader. Yet, each must remain pliant and submissive to the power above. It can become humiliating. It is quite possible at some point that, like Rosselli, one among them may be impelled to stand against the tide. Trusteeship may toll for thee.
The trusteeship threat was real and it was acute. So the press reported. So most commentators realized. Stern felt compelled to pull back. Speaking out publicly, the 101 scholars sought to defend union democracy. For the moment, they succeeded.
They were not alone.
Months before, reports filtered in from dissatisfied rank and file SEIU groups in locals around the country. And on May 5, four pro-union student groups, at the University of North Carolina, at the University of California, at the Stanford Labor Coalition, and at the Santa Clara Labor Action Committee, published an open letter to Stern: "… over the last few years we have begun to see a disturbing pattern developing in SEIU's relationship with students and campus workers….SEIU leaders often see students and campus workers as little more than pawns …to maneuver in a way that brings members and dues into the union in the short term but keeps workers in poverty and actually hurts our collective efforts to help unions grow at a massive scale."
On May 4, came a rare statement from within the SEIU leadership itself, diffident and tentative but definitely critical. David Kranz, director of the Professional and Technical Department of 1199 in New York, sent what he called a "somewhat long" open letter to his fellow officers of United Healthcare Workers-East, along with a page and a half summary. Although it was presented as neutral discussion of the dispute between the SEIU international administration and Rosselli's UHW-W, and he professed admiration for the achievements of both sides --- "There are no bad guys in this fight." --- Kranz revealed his distress. He expressed concern over "the way in which the international was merging locals into 'mega-locals' and the proposal to transfer many long-term care members out of [Rosselli's] UHW." He conceded that "the international …is motivated by a passionate desire to organize, to increase union density…." But, he added, "…the International is sometimes employing methods that come into conflict with another crucial element, member involvement and empowerment." He hopes for a reasonable compromise and wants his 1199 'to be seen as truly neutral." However, George Gresham, who heads 1199 in New York and is one of the recipients of Kranz's letter, has already joined with 46 other not very neutral SEIU officers to denounce Rosselli and to defend Stern against criticism from those 101 labor educators and writers. Can Kranz's outspoken neutrality survive in these so partisan times?
UHW-W's special fund
Facing an onslaught from Stern and the imminent threat of a trusteeship, the UHW-W deposited $3,000,000 into a separate non-profit, tax-exempt fund [IRS code 501(c)(3)] independent of the regular local treasury but administered by local officers. The move would perhaps have provided a way to cope with a serious defect in federal legal protections for union democracy. A union imposed trusteeship is presumed valid for 18 months; during that time, the international takes control of the entire local treasury. The local leadership is deprived of all resources and unable to pay for any activity, not even for legal defense.
The avowed purpose of the fund was to educate the public on issues of public health of concern to union members; and, presumably, because it was independent of the local treasury, it would be immune from seizure by an international trustee and would be still available to promote the local's public program. To some extent, perhaps, it would have been available to defend the legal rights of local members during the trusteeship. In that connection, the aim was legitimate, because the need is great. But the means turned out to be inadequate.
In his earlier threat against Rosselli, Stern charged, among other accusations, that the establishment of this fund was an improper use of local moneys. Having obviously abandoned the trusteeship route, at least temporarily, Stern continued to pursue this one charge in the form of a federal suit against the UHW-W local officers. In its complaint in federal court, the SEIU contends, among other arguments, that "the so-called 'education' fund" was a subterfuge for financing a challenge to a trusteeship: "the defendants were aware that when an international union appoints a trustee to manage the affairs of a local union, displaced local union officers wishing to challenge the trusteeship will, by definition, lack access to the union's funds and be required to finance their challenge with their own personal funds." The complaint charges, too, that Rosselli stated that the fund was established to educate workers and patients about "their democratic rights under the LMRDA." Faced by the challenge, the local dissolved the fund and returned it to the local treasury; disputes over earlier expenditures continue.
When the Stern camp charges that the use of such a fund for defense against trusteeship would be impermissible, it opens itself to a question: is its own suit really a subterfuge, a device for making a political point against the UHW-W? It so happens that another large SEIU local on the West Coast maintains precisely such a fund; and there is no record that its action ever bothered Stern! On April 5, 2001, SEIU Local 1000 turned $500,000 over to its attorney to establish an escrow account "to be used by the officers of Local 1000 as individuals to challenge CSEA's canceling of Local 1000's charter." The Local faced the threat of the equivalent of a trusteeship from its state organization. The escrow fund still exists. On March 11, this year, a member of the CSEA Board of Directors and of Local 1000 called its existence to the attention of Andy Stern.
The platforms
The critical opposition: For the convention, the Rosselli camp presented a "Platform for Change" that reflects a widespread feeling that the rights of SEIU members are viewed with contempt by the top leadership. Among other proposals are amendments to the international constitution:
- To go beyond the existing membership right to ratify final contracts by allowing rank and filers to elect members of the bargaining committees, to vote on contract proposals and "any agreement" that affects working conditions.
- To limit forced mergers of locals. To establish an independent fact finder review of decisions to change jurisdiction of locals.
- To change from election by convention delegates to the direct election of international officers by membership vote.
- "Some SEIU national leaders,” the platform reads, "are moving in a direction that differs from our vision and guiding principles of union democracy…. [They] also want to pull nursing and homecare members out of our local union."
The administration's "Justice for All. Pass it On" is a 31-page densely packed document that constitutes the administration's convention platform. It would be impossible for any assemblage of delegates in one convention lifetime to analyze or even to seriously discuss such a production.
The administration is introducing a four-year plan to change America. By 2012, the plan asserts, SEIU will have 500,000 more members, maybe a million. Everyone will have affordable, quality healthcare. Ten percent of the membership will be "volunteers"; 95% or more will be registered voters; a majority "will be involved in helping to achieve our core goals." In summary, "the 2008 convention can set the stage for four years of the most historic progress working people have made in generations." And more: "We can win Justice for All working people - and we can pass it on to future generations. The decision is in our hands." The program proposes to accomplish these aims by setting annual achievement quotas, by a complex organizational system of wheels within wheels, and by constant repetition of the lofty quality of their aspirations. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
The plan's tone, its repetitions, its blockbuster size alone, is a warning that the Stern camp hopes to turn this convention into a massive pep rally: a paean of praise for everything in the past and a celebration of a multitude of wonders to come. The Rosselli camp has circulated its own 19-page reply. Only a tiny resolute band will try to work through these products. The important issues in dispute will be buried in the paper avalanche. Since the administration controls the convention proceedings, it is difficult to see how the critics can get a genuine hearing for their proposals over the din of self-adulation.
Democracy
Motherhood is sacred in the SEIU as everywhere. No one can object to setting a goal for solving the problems of the working class, even of all humanity. (Although the 4-year timeline does seem excessively demanding.)
Reading through the 31 pages of rhetoric, celebrating the great days of yesterday and promises of those to come, it is easy to forget that the SEIU faces some related fundamental issues: the nature of the labor movement it hopes to build and the quality of its own internal democracy. These are the subjects that have begun to disturb increasing numbers of union members and are the source of the bitter evolving dispute inside the union.
The declaration pays due respect to "democracy." But it is a strange kind of democracy, with little concern for the concrete rights of members in their union. And it envisages a kind of quasi-militarized union leadership: not leaders of a democratic movement but a caste of officers, in lockstep, directing controlled ranks.
In this massive declaration, the subject, "Bill of Rights," is tossed off in six short phrases. Two refer not to rights in the union but to members' responsibilities to the union. One, is "the right to be educated." Two refer briefly and inadequately to what is already mandated by federal law. The last, "the right to participate in the union's bargaining efforts and approve union contracts." No space wasted on how this or any other the right might be enforced.
Repeatedly in 31 pages, the program emphasizes that the union must speak as "one voice." The very repetition offers a clue to what the Stern leadership conceives of as democracy and what it hopes to impose on the union: not an acceptance of robust discussion of issues but a device for imposing discipline on the collective cadre of elected and appointed officers and hired staff at all levels, local and international. We remember that in earlier exchanges, Stern's supporters denounced Rosselli not merely for the content of his speech but for the very offense of speaking out at all. Their ideal for future life in the SEIU might be summarized this way: Every four years a few thousand delegates are to adopt what is spoon fed to them at a convention. During the next four years, the collective leadership at all levels sells the line to the members in "one voice." And so on. They cannot forgive Rosselli for violating the prescribed code. Those who refuse to genuflect before that kind of "majority" decision, are berated as foes of democracy.
The irony is that this militarized system cannot be justified as necessary to confront hostile employers in a war against organized capital. Such a confrontational approach, insists Stern, is outdated and ineffective. Quite the contrary, the union expects to make big gains by inducing employers to agree to union representation. The one voice, the disciplined officialdom, is actually a device not for battling employers but for managing the union's own membership.
If the convention adopts the administration's encyclopedia of intentions, promises, and rearrangements, it will be like endorsing the Bible as a code of conduct. (Priests decree what the good book really means.) If, like Rosselli, you speak out against the required interpretation ---- heretics, beware!
More
resources on Change to Win and SEIU:
See Benson's
Union Democracy Blog for several articles
On
the eve of the SEIU Convention
Opposition
wins most delegates from big SEIU local
Fight
in Ohio between SEIU and California Nurses revives old issue: When employers
welcome unions at the NLRB
On
"democratic" centralism: Stern's illusion and democracy's nightmare
Healthcare
leader raps Stern; quits SEIU board
SEIU
rearranges 600,000 into mega locals
Debate
on Union Democracy and Change to Win
If
you can't woo 'em, sue 'em! An ingenious twist in punishing dissent in the SEIU
SEIU's Unite to Win blog reviewed.
Local
509 asks questions about democracy in the SEIU
New Unity Partnership:Sweeney
Critics would bureaucratize to organize.
Service Employees: Mass. merger
in Local 888.
Benson's Union
Democracy blog.
Student
Labor Activists support union democracy.
Articles
on the Labor Notes site on NUP from various sources.
See UDR articles on
the Carpenters (UBCJA) for case studies in merger and bureaucratization.
Several articles on the New Unity Partnership are available on the BC
Carpenters website.
Find articles on the consolidation
of power in the Carpenters union on the main UDR page.
An exchange
on union democracy between Herman Benson and Steve Fraser, on the Laborers.org
website (click on Fraser's name for a link to his article)
Links to rank-and-file websites in the NUP unions: Carpenters,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees, Laborers, Needle Trades (UNITE), Service Employees
(building services, public employees).
Previous Article: Maine shipbuilders protest vs. IAM trusteeship
Next Article: Opposition wins most delegates from big SEIU local
This website is made possible by contributions from union members and supporters like you. Please help us build the movement for union democracy, join or contribute to AUD.
AUDHome; Legal Rights; Education; Union Democracy Review; Books; AUDLinks
Page designed by Matt Noyes, National
Writers Union/UAW, and Rachel Szekely
The Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org
104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn,
New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114; info@uniondemocracy.org
This work is licensed
under a Creative
Commons License.
Use
the following credit line on the materials you use:
"From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"
Please notify us at websteward@uniondemocracy.org when you use material from the site.
Send comments or suggestions on the website to websteward@uniondemocracy.org.