Discussion paper by United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) for the SEIU Convention in June 2008.
\nA First Look At SEIU\u2019s Plan to Centralize Decision-Making Power and Financial Resources at the Expense of Union Democracy and Strong Organization Among SEIU Members<\/p>\n
Discussion paper by United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) for the SEIU Convention in June 2008. A First Look At SEIU\u2019s Plan to Centralize Decision-Making Power and Financial Resources at the Expense of Union Democracy and Strong Organization Among SEIU Members<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[26],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nIn early June, SEIU will hold its quadrennial convention in Puerto Rico where delegates will set the union\u2019s direction for the next four years. In advance of the convention, SEIU leaders are distributing their proposed plan for the coming years, which they have given the high-minded title \u201cJustice for All\u201d.
\nThe plan, which has important implications for the future of SEIU, deserves careful evaluation and discussion. This discussion paper provides a first look at a number of key questions related to the plan, including:
\n\u00b7\tWho produced the \u201cJustice for All\u201d plan?
\n\u00b7\tWhat are the plan\u2019s main programmatic elements?
\n\u00b7\tWhere would the \u201cJustice for All\u201d plan lead our union?
\n\u00b7\tWhat are alternative proposals?
\n\u00b7\tWhat are the key differences between these competing proposals?
\nAn initial review of the \u201cJustice for All\u201d plan reveals that like many other of SEIU\u2019s recent public relations efforts, it masks a process and a product that are virtually the opposite of what they purport to be. Instead of \u201cJustice for All\u201d, the plan aims primarily at \u201cControl for Just Us\u201d, a radical centralization of decision-making power and financial resources at the expense of union democracy and strong organization among SEIU members.
\nKey findings include the following:
\n\u00b7\tThe process by which the Justice for All Plan was created and reviewed was tightly controlled and heavily dominated by International staff.
\n\u00b7\tIf adopted, the plan\u2019s key programmatic elements would further centralize resources and decision-making power in the hands of International Union officials in Washington D.C. The plan would redirect tens of millions of dollars of members\u2019 dues by requiring each local union to pool the entirety of its mandated organizing budget \u2013 fully 20% of local union dues revenues net of per capita payments to SEIU \u2013 under the control of SEIU\u2019s Industry Divisions, radically limiting the role of local unions and union members in the development of organizing strategies and control of organizing campaigns, and potentially gutting the independent local organizing capacity that has accounted for a significant portion of SEIU\u2019s growth. Furthermore, the plan would further centralize decision-making power over collective bargaining and employer relationships by eliminating key decision-making bodies and replacing them with structures that are significantly less democratic. For example, an International Union staff person who represents no members would have the same voting power on newly created \u201cNational Bargaining Teams\u201d as would a representative from a local union with 20,000 affected rank-and-file members.
\n\u00b7\tOther elements of the plan are designed to undermine members\u2019 capacity to engage employers directly at the worksite and to erode the political leadership structure of local unions. The plan would establish remote telephone call centers to respond to members\u2019 workplace problems and would redirect local union field organizing staff to member mobilization on external projects. Rather than increasing members\u2019 involvement in their union and providing them additional support to pursue their interests with their employers, these call centers are designed to dispense with workplace conflict administratively and re-construct the union as an issue advocacy organization to pursue priorities and execute campaigns in which workers would have little say.
\n\u00b7\tThe plan also would centralize local unions\u2019 back-office services, such as accounting, dues processing, list management, financial reporting, management, data storage and information technology. By 2012, a new, centralized administrative-services organization would provide administrative services to a majority of SEIU members across North America. While administrative efficiency is desirable, the centralization of these services is largely a means of reducing the political independence of local unions by stripping them of meaningful control over core areas of their organizational infrastructure.
\n\u00b7\tThe plan establishes goals for improving membership participation, organizing growth, leadership development and political participation by SEIU members, but provides few details about the strategy, funding or plans to accomplish these objectives. Certain goals, such as the ones associated with leadership development, are contradicted by other objectives of the plan, such as reducing the power of rank-and-file members in key decision-making structures. Moreover, all of the plan\u2019s goals are merely quantitative and, shy of sloganeering, are bereft of any qualitative content regarding the analytical, ideological, and cultural work necessary to develop and support worker leaders capable of directing and engaging in the massive upsurge of membership activity necessary to achieve these objectives.
\nIn sum, the main programmatic features of the \u201cJustice for All\u201d plan represent a rehash of Change to Win\u2019s failed fixations on \u201cstructural solutions\u201d to the crisis of the labor movement and a continuation of the even more dangerous direction established in SEIU over recent years: increasing centralization of resources and decision-making power in the hands of International Union officials in D.C. With this increased power, the Stern administration is increasingly pursuing a top-down, employer-oriented unionism that seeks to expand the union through short cuts and concessionary deals rather than methodically building a bottom-up union that empowers workers, enables them to control their union and arms them with the tools and organization to win meaningful improvements in their lives.
\nIn contrast to the Justice for All Plan, the Executive Board of SEIU United Healthcare Workers \u2013 West (UHW) has crafted a set of constitutional amendments and action resolutions for the SEIU Convention that is designed to protect members\u2019 rights, strengthen our International Union\u2019s democratic structure and improve workers\u2019 ability to coordinate bargaining and organizing campaigns across local unions. These constitutional amendments and action resolutions \u2013 providing the specific prescriptions to achieve the principles of UHW\u2019s \u201cPlatform for Change\u201d \u2013 would make SEIU stronger, more democratic and more effective at improving the lives of workers across North America.
\nTo date, SEIU leaders have refused to debate these proposals on their merits. Instead, they have sought to deliberately mischaracterize the terms of the debate by contrasting their Justice for all Plan with a frightening alternative: \u201cJust Us\u201d unionism, which is not actually being advocated by anyone inside SEIU. \u201cJust Us\u201d unionism is simply a straw man designed by International Union leaders to distract attention from the real debate facing our union, and is in fact the exact same straw man trotted out to discredit any opponent of their arguments for splitting the Change to Win unions from the AFL-CIO.
\nOur union stands at a critical moment in its history. More than ever, we need a serious debate about the future structure, direction and vision of our union. We hope you will join us in this important debate by reading this initial discussion paper, evaluating its arguments and debating its conclusions. The following sections examine a number of key questions related to the Justice for All Plan and summarize the Platform for Change.
\nI. Who produced the Justice for All Plan?
\nAccording to SEIU leaders, the Justice for All Plan (hereafter called the \u201cStern Plan\u201d) grew out of a lengthy participatory process involving thousands of SEIU members and elected leaders.
\n\u201cOver the past few years, thousands of SEIU members and elected union leaders have met in committees and larger groups\u2026 Based on their research, much debate, extensive discussion about our future vision in each SEIU industry division, town hall meetings with members of local unions in every region, and input from SEIU members, the following are their recommendations to the elected local delegate to the 2008 SEIU Convention.\u201d (p. 9)
\nA closer look at the planning and review process offers a very different picture.
\nThe Stern Plan was created by nine committees whose composition and leadership were heavily dominated by staff of the International Union.
\n\u00b7\tThe International Union appointed all of the members of each committee.
\n\u00b7\tThe chairpersons of every committee were individuals on the International Union\u2019s payroll.
\n\u00b7\tOf the 134 seats on the nine committees, there were only 79 different people (meaning many people served on multiple committees). Of these 79 individuals, nearly half (35) were International Union staff members. An additional 24 members were from locals whose leadership was appointed by Stern.
\nOther claims about the participatory character of the review process are equally questionable. For example, SEIU leaders tout a series of \u201ctown hall meetings with members of local unions in every region\u201d as a key part of a review process involving thousands of SEIU members. The reality is very different. SEIU leaders sharply restricted membership participation in the seven \u201ctown hall meetings\u201d they conducted across the United States during the spring of 2008. In 2004, any SEIU member was permitted to participate in the town hall meetings that reviewed the draft plan for that year\u2019s convention. In 2008, SEIU leaders limited participation to only seven individuals from each local union, who were required to pre-register for the meeting. Each local union was permitted to send representatives to only one town hall meeting. In the meetings, each local union was provided 30 seconds to make a statement to all of the meeting\u2019s participants.
\nIn sum, the planning and review process was so tightly controlled and so heavily dominated by International staff as to raise obvious questions about whose opinions are really reflected in the Stern Plan.
\nII. What are the Justice for All Plan\u2019s main programmatic initiatives?
\nSEIU leaders unveiled the plan amid great fanfare, with SEIU Spokesperson Andrew McDonald calling it \u201cthe most ambitious and far-reaching proposal to change America any union has ever considered.\u201d SEIU President Stern describes it in equally dramatic terms: \u201cSEIU is proposing new and far-reaching reforms that are paradigm shifting for a labor union. They are a threat to entrenched power and individual interests. They make clear that the status quo is no longer an option.\u201d
\nWhat, then, are the plan\u2019s major elements?
\nAs in any organization, the most important organizational questions are those that pertain to resources and decision-making power. Given that the development of the plan was so dominated by International Union staff, it should come as no surprise that the Stern Plan calls for further consolidation of the International Union’s control over resources, organizing, collective bargaining and politics. The plan is far from \u201cparadigm-shifting\u201d and \u201ca threat to entrenched power.\u201d In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect by continuing along the path already charted by the Stern administration. The plan, by consolidating more resources in the hands of International Union officials in D.C., would in fact expand the entrenched power of these officials.
\nThe following is a review of the plan\u2019s major programmatic initiatives:
\nA. Directing More Local Resources to D.C:<\/strong><\/em>
\nThe plan proposes shifting tens of millions of dollars from local unions to SEIU\u2019s Industry Divisions. According to the plan, \u201cEvery local union will set aside 20% of its post per capita budget to organizing in a separate fund. These local union resources will be blended with the Division\u2019s dedicated Unity Fund of at least $12 million as the primary resources to carry out a Division\u2019s plan.\u201d (p. 10)
\nThis dramatic redirection of resources is a continuation of previous initiatives that have already shifted massive resources from local unions to the International Union during the past decade.
\n\u00b7\tIn 1996, the SEIU Convention authorized a plan that raised SEIU members\u2019 dues over a four-year period in order to provide increased funding for local unions and the International Union.
\n\u00b7\tIn 2000, the SEIU Convention adopted \u201cthe New Strength Unity Plan\u201d that included the creation of \u201cUnity Funds\u201d \u2013 nationally controlled funds for breakthrough organizing campaigns and coordinated bargaining that are created from local union members\u2019 dues monies.
\nThese two financing initiatives dramatically expanded the resources that local unions provide to the International Union. Each month, every local union sends to the International Union a net per capita tax of $7.65 per member as well as an additional tax of $5 per member for a Unity Fund to help finance national union organizing priorities. In 2007, the International Union\u2019s D.C. headquarters received approximately $140 million in per capita taxes from local unions as well as $110 million in Unity Fund contributions.
\nThese two financing initiatives have sharply increased the International Union\u2019s membership revenues, which reached nearly a quarter billion dollars in 2007. On a per-member basis, annual dues contributions to the International Union nearly doubled from $73 in 2000 to $131 in 2007.
\nGrowth of the International Union\u2019s Revenues: 2000-07
\nPer Capita Tax Receipts\tPer Capita Tax Receipts per Member
\n2000\t$100.9 million\t$73.43
\n2007\t$248.9 million\t$131.27
\nSource: SEIU Forms LM-2
\nDespite this sharp increase in funding to the International Union during recent years, the Stern Plan seeks to transfer additional resources from local unions to D.C. The plan would require each local union to pool its mandated organizing budget \u2013 fully 20% of local union dues net of per capita payments to SEIU \u2013 under the authority of Industry Divisions, which would then determine how the monies are allocated. The SEIU Constitution already provides for local unions to transfer unspent organizing funds to Industry Divisions in order to fund needed organizing campaigns. However, requiring every local union to place its organizing funds under the control of Industry Divisions has serious shortcomings:
\n\u00b7\tThe mandatory transfer of local unions\u2019 organizing budgets to Division control could undermine initiatives approved by prior SEIU conventions \u2013 namely, to require each local union to fund and create its own organizing program in order to build power in its industries. Mandatory reductions in local unions\u2019 organizing budgets would undercut member and staff capacity to carry out effective organizing campaigns.
\n\u00b7\tBy its own admission, the International Union\u2019s success with organizing campaigns has declined substantially. The Stern Plan states that \u201cwhile we have doubled spending on organizing in four years, we have not doubled results.\u201d Elsewhere, the plan notes: \u201cOur spending to help each new worker join us has increased greatly, which jeopardizes our ability to unite more workers faster.\u201d Given this performance, does it make sense to centralize more organizing monies in Industry Divisions?
\n\u00b7\tIt is not clear how this expanded funding would be used. For example, in recent months the International Union launched a nationwide \u201cbreakthrough\u201d campaign to organize bank tellers. While bank tellers deserve a union, the banking industry does not fall within SEIU\u2019s industrial focus and is better industrial match for another union that has an ongoing commitment to organize this huge and complex industry. Furthermore, dedicating millions of dollars to organizing other industries, like the banking industry, means fewer resources for building power in SEIU\u2019s core industries of health care, public sector and property services.
\nThe bank teller campaign highlights important questions about the decision-making and accountability structures connected to centralized funds. Do International Union leaders have too much authority if they are able to use millions of dollars of union members\u2019 dues money to conduct what might reasonably be described as \u201chot shop\u201d organizing outside of SEIU\u2019s industries? How can members hold International Union leaders accountable for building our union\u2019s power in our core industries?
\n\u00b7\tIf more dues money is being centralized in Washington D.C., is the International Union simultaneously creating effective, democratic systems for managing the money and holding leaders and staff in D.C. accountable to how members\u2019 dues are spent?
\n\u00b7\tPerhaps most importantly, the work of local union members and leaders to develop and execute long term strategies to build union density in their geographies, by painstaking work to make unionization an ongoing option for not-yet-union workers in their jurisdictions, could be jeopardized or entirely scuttled by this radical centralization of resources and direction. Not only has much of SEIU\u2019s organizing success been achieved exactly through the development of robust, empowered local union organizing programs, but these programs provide the everyday, concrete focus on organizing as a top priority that is necessary to harness all of the union\u2019s power in bargaining and in politics toward the goal of growth. The commitment of time and money and the willingness to make sacrifices and take risks that will be necessary to achieve the next wave of growth in our industries depends upon a local nexus that integrates the priority of organizing into every aspect of union life. The International Union\u2019s fixation on structure at the expense of conscientious organization building threatens the very basis for our success.
\nB. Centralizing Decision-Making Power: <\/strong><\/em>
\nDuring the past decade, our International Union has been reshaped by both external industry forces as well as internal organizational changes. First, the increasing size of our employers has required SEIU locals to conduct more coordinated bargaining and organizing campaigns to take on the multi-billion dollar corporations that increasingly dominate our industries. Secondly, the SEIU funding initiatives described above have substantially centralized more resources and power in our International Union. For example, by 2007 the International Union\u2019s annual revenues had grown to a quarter billion dollars \u2013 more than double its 2000 budget. This change has shifted the center of gravity of our union away from local union halls and into the offices of our International Union\u2019s D.C. headquarters.
\nThese twin changes present important challenges to our union\u2019s system of decision making and require sensible reforms of its national and divisional structures \u2013 namely, more democratic and transparent governance processes as well as an improved system of checks and balances to ensure that members\u2019 dues money and power is accountable to them.
\nWhile the Stern Plan embraces the language of democracy, it offers few guarantees that the International Union will implement the kinds of reforms needed to achieve it. The following are several examples of recent problems that highlight the need for change:
\n\u00b7\tSuspending Unity Council: In February, President Stern unilaterally suspended the Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) Unity Council, which was adopted by CHW rank-and-file leaders and approved by the International Executive Board pursuant to the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws. The CHW Unity Council was established by SEIU Nevada, SEIU Local 121RN and SEIU UHW to coordinate the activities of the three local unions representing 16,000 CHW workers. President Stern suspended the Unity Council just three weeks before 15,000 SEIU members were set to begin negotiating a successor collective bargaining agreement with CHW in California.
\n\u00b7\tEmploying Undemocratic Pooled Voting System for Mergers: Inside SEIU, there is no uniform practice for conducting votes on whether to merge local unions. Some merger votes are conducted by using a \u201clocal-by-local\u201d voting system, which requires each local to separately approve a merger before a merger can take place. Many local unions\u2019 affiliation agreements with SEIU require this sensible and fair voting system.
\nDuring recent years, however, the International Union has conducted merger votes using a \u201cpooled\u201d voting system that is significantly less fair. Under this system, votes cast by the members of each local union are combined into a single pool, with the majority of these pooled votes determining the election outcome for all of the involved locals. Recently, mergers were conducted in both California and Canada using such a pooled voting system. The pooled voting system is especially unfair when mergers are conducted between multiple local unions and local unions of vastly different sizes, as members of large locals who believe a merger to be beneficial can effectively vote to merge into them the members of smaller locals without the distinct voice of these members ever being heard.
\n\u00b7\tBlocking Members from their Bargaining Table: In 2006 SEIU Local 121RN, the Florida Healthcare Union and SEIU UHW began joint negotiations with Tenet for successor contracts covering 7,000 members, as well as a renewal of our national organizing agreement. During the bargaining process, International staff leaders prohibited Local 121RN\u2019s and UHW\u2019s elected rank-and-file bargaining committee from participating in negotiations with their employer. International staff leaders secretly reached tentative agreements with management, including an agreement to permit Tenet to subcontract 12% of union members\u2019 jobs. During meetings of the Tenet Unity Council, International officers and attorneys attempted to unfairly manipulate the rules of the Unity Council in order to achieve an outcome they sought. Upon completion of the Tenet contract negotiations, bargaining team members requested that President Stern assign a neutral party to review the numerous concerns of rank-and-file members regarding the Tenet bargaining process. This review was completed six months ago, but International staff leaders have refused to release copies of the report.
\nThese recent actions exemplify the kinds of problems encountered in our union\u2019s national and divisional decision-making structures. And they underscore the need for democratic reforms that guarantee members\u2019 right to control their union. The Stern Plan, rather than democratizing our union\u2019s decision-making structures, would further centralize decision-making power in the hands of International Union officials by by making the following changes to key decision-making bodies.
\n\u221a Division Leadership Structure: The Stern Plan would eliminate the current Division leadership structures and would replace them with new leadership structures whose rules could exclude local leaders from participating on them. Currently, the Healthcare Division is governed by a \u201cCouncil of Presidents,\u201d which guarantees every healthcare local union a seat on this council. The Stern Plan would eliminate this key decision-making body and replace it with a new structure called a \u201cDivision Leadership Board.\u201d Each Division Leadership Board would be composed of \u201crepresentatives elected to the International Executive Board (IEB) at the SEIU Convention, and those subsequently filling a vacancy as a Vice-President or International Executive Board member.\u201d These board members could decide to expand the Division Leadership Board by submitting \u201crecommendations for expansion to the International President for approval by the International Executive Board.\u201d (p. 19). However, without such a plan and IEB approval, the board would consist only of IEB members.
\n\u221a Multi-Local Coordinating Structures: The Stern Plan would also make profound changes to the multi-local coordinating structures responsible for decisions regarding bargaining, organizing and employer relations with shared employers. The plan would eliminate the existing multi-local coordinating structures (Unity Councils) and replace them with new structures that would erode the power of rank-and-file leaders.
\nFollowing the 2004 SEIU Convention, the Health Systems Division established Unity Councils as a means of improving coordination among local unions with shared employers. The International Executive Board debated and approved at least a half dozen Unity Councils. These Health Systems Unity Councils have generally permitted local unions to carry out effective joint planning and coordinated actions to enhance members\u2019 power. As noted in Section IV of this discussion paper, UHW has submitted a proposal to the 2008 SEIU Convention that is aimed at formalizing the procedures and structures of Unity Councils as practiced in the Health Systems Division, so they can serve as effective coordinating structures across our International Union. The Long-Term Care Division also has established Unity Councils, but their structure and practices are significantly less democratic, resulting in a centralization of power in the hands of International Union leaders rather than expanding the members\u2019 power in their union.
\nThe Stern Plan would replace Unity Councils with new coordinating structures called \u201cNational Bargaining Teams\u201d and \u201cNational Bargaining Councils.\u201d The following are some of the key shortcomings of these proposed new coordinating structures, which are less democratic than Health Systems Unity Councils in both their make-up and decision-making systems:
\n\u00b7\tComposition of National Bargaining Teams: The make-up of National Bargaining Teams would differ substantially from the Health Systems Divison\u2019s Unity Councils. Unity Councils are led by representatives from local unions, with Industry Division staff in supportive roles.
\nIn contrast, SEIU Industry Division staff could occupy a majority of seats on many National Bargaining Teams. The composition of National Bargaining Teams is complicated, with their make-up varying according to whether employers are considered to be in \u201chigh union density,\u201d \u201clow union density\u201d and \u201cvirtually no union density\u201d settings. Bargaining teams in \u201clow density\u201d and \u201chigh density\u201d settings are supposed to be specially designed \u201cto assure [sic] that the voice of members is heard.\u201d (p. 25) However, the rules provide no guidelines regarding the relative mix of team members in \u201clow union density settings.\u201d Even for high density employers, the rules do not guarantee that representatives of local unions would occupy a majority of voting seats. Instead, the rules state that \u201cThe number of division representatives shall not be greater than the number of team members appointed from the local unions.\u201d (p. 25)
\n\u00b7\tSelection of National Bargaining Team Members: Currently in Health Systems Unity Councils, each local union selects and appoints its own representatives to each council, subject to approval by the International President. In contrast, members of National Bargaining Teams \u2013 including representatives from local unions \u2013 would be appointed by the International President, not their local union. Presumably, these bargaining team members could also be unseated by the International President, although this power is not specified in the proposed guidelines.
\n\u00b7\tSelection of Chair and Employer Representative: Under the current practice of Health Systems Unity Councils, the local union that represents the largest number of workers at a given employer is designated as the lead employer representative and serves as the \u201cpoint person\u201d for managing relations with the employer on behalf of the group of local unions. There is no such requirement for National Bargaining Teams. Instead, the International President would appoint the Chair, who also would serve as the team\u2019s chief spokesperson.
\n\u00b7\tDecision-Making System: The decision-making rules for National Bargaining Teams are less fair and democratic than the ones governing Unity Councils. In Unity Councils, members rely on a per capita voting system to decide issues that cannot be resolved through consensus decision making. Many union decision-making bodies, such as SEIU State Councils and the SEIU Convention, use per capita voting to fairly apportion decision-making power according to the number of affected members.
\nNational Bargaining Teams would discard per capita voting and instead use a system of one committee member\/one vote in \u201clow union density settings.\u201d This system would produce extremely undemocratic circumstances. For instance, an SEIU Industry Division staff person representing no members or a local union representing 100 affected workers would have the same voting power as a bargaining team member representing 10,000 affected workers. In \u201chigh union density settings,\u201d issues not resolved through consensus would be decided by one committee member\/one vote or an alternative voting structure proposed by the Division Leadership Board and approved by the International Executive Board.
\nHealth Systems Unity Councils vs. National Bargaining Teams
\nHealth Systems Unity Councils\tNational Bargaining Teams
\nWho are the members?\tRepresentatives of local unions\tRepresentatives of local unions and International Union staff
\nWho appoints the members?\tLocal unions\tInternational President
\nHow are decisions made if consensus cannot be reached? \tPer capita vote\tOne committee member\/one vote
\nWho is the Chair?\tRepresentative from the local union with the largest number of workers at the particular employer\tAppointed by International President
\nWho is the lead representative with the employer?\tRepresentative from the local union with the largest number of workers at the particular employer\tAppointed by International President
\nC. Collective Bargaining and Employer Relations:<\/strong><\/em>
\nThe Stern Plan recognizes the need for \u201cdeveloping a collective bargaining program that will win [higher] standards at the bargaining table.\u201d (p. 22) However, the plan fails to propose any steps towards creating a more effective and vigorous bargaining program for our union. Its silence on these questions speaks volumes, making clear that there is no meaningful plan for collective bargaining other than to turnover more and more authority for employer relations to the International Union, which will then be free to pursue its chosen path of low-road, top-down deals without sufficient membership involvement in decision-making or sufficient opportunities for members to build and use power to secure improvements for themselves and the people they serve while also creating organizing opportunities for not-yet-union workers. If SEIU had been serious in the slightest about building the union\u2019s collective bargaining program, it could have taken a series of simple steps, such as the following:
\n\u00b7\trequiring Industry Divisions to adopt Division-wide minimum bargaining standards;
\n\u00b7\tlining up the expiration dates of local unions\u2019 contracts to enhance members\u2019 power at the bargaining table;
\n\u00b7\tcreating systems of better coordinated and pattern bargaining across regions or nations;
\n\u00b7\tproviding collective bargaining training and mentoring to staff; and
\n\u00b7\tjoining SEIU\u2019s various Industry Divisions in creative campaigns aimed at shrinking the substantial gap in compensation and employment standards between SEIU members who do the same work in different industries and sectors (for example, janitors who work in commercial office buildings, nursing homes and hospitals).
\nD. Member Call Centers: <\/strong><\/em>
\nThe Stern Plan proposes that local unions establish call centers to respond to members\u2019 job-related problems and provide them with \u201chigh quality member representation.\u201d Under this model, SEIU members would phone a remote call center, where staff would advise them over the phone on how to interpret their facilities\u2019 contract and resolve workplace problems. The Stern Plan recommends implementing call centers \u201cacross the union\u201d after conducting pilot projects. (p. 13) By 2012, enough call centers would have been created to serve a majority of SEIU members across North America. The plan also calls for a program to \u201cretrain and redirect local union field organizing staff,\u201d yet provides no details regarding what sort of retraining would be provided or what sorts of work the field organizing staff would conduct upon being \u201cretrained.\u201d
\nThis proposal raises profound concerns about the future role of members in their union as well as the direction of our International Union. Throughout SEIU\u2019s history, we have learned that powerful unions require trained and effective workplace leaders, strong shop-floor organization and a culture of solidarity and action among members. On a more practical level, strong unions require stewards and member leaders who can organize their co-workers, interpret and defend their contract, conduct issue fights, handle grievances and resolve problems. This combination of people, skills, organization and culture allows members to build worker-led unions that take responsibility for directing and leading their relations with employers and guiding the direction of our union.
\nWe believe that SEIU\u2019s call center plan is actually designed to undermine this sort of engaged shop-floor organization, which is essential for building the power necessary to challenge employers. Instead of increasing members\u2019 involvement in their union and providing them additional support to pursue their interests with their employers, these call centers are designed to dispense with workplace conflict administratively and re-construct the union as an issue advocacy organization to pursue priorities and execute campaigns in which workers would have little say.
\nThe plan closely tracks a branding study, commissioned by SEIU from the Silicon Valley-based firm IDEO, that arrived at the following conclusions:
\n\u00a7\tSEIU is directed from the top down and there is limited member engagement;
\n\u00a7\tMembership engagement must be built on values and issues that are widely held and deeply felt;
\n\u00a7\tWorkplace issues and pursuit of workers\u2019 interests directly with employers are not important enough to SEIU members to provide the most effective basis for building member engagement;
\n\u00a7\tTherefore, SEIU should displace its employer relations work from the center of its membership activity, outsourcing worksite grievances to call centers and other employer relations matters to top union officials and coordinating mechanisms; and
\n\u00a7\tField staff and member activists should be remade as \u201cmembership engagement specialists\u201d and \u201cmobilizers\u201d orienting much more of their work to external issue priorities that are aligned with members\u2019 values.
\nAt its worst, this analysis and the plans that follow from it could literally be understood as a strategy to abandon the core purpose of the union in favor of using the employment nexus as an efficient means of securing dues check-off, mailing lists, phone lists, and e-mails, and a voter file that SEIU \u2013 emulating AARP, MoveOn.org, and mega-churches \u2013 can use to become the biggest, strongest, and best funded issue advocacy organization in America and the world, without worrying any longer about being an organization of workers, by workers and for workers.
\nEven in its less sinister versions, the call center proposal conflicts with our basic theory about the leadership of unions. Throughout our history, we have recognized that the core leadership of our union is composed of stewards and worksite leaders \u2013 the rank-and-file leaders who are directly engaged with their employers. Worksite steward structures and workplace leaders are the foundation upon which our entire union is constructed. In other words, our union is literally built from the bottom up. Call centers, rather than empowering our union\u2019s leadership base, would divest them of a key organizational role that provides them with political agency inside our union. It would turn our longstanding organizational theory on its head.
\nFinally, on a more practical level, we are concerned that call centers would remove needed staff support, training and other resources from members in their worksites. The Stern Plan briefly mentions this redirection of resources away from worksites and into other areas when it notes plans to \u201cretrain and redirect local union field organizing staff.\u201d (p. 12) However, the plan provides few details.
\n\u00b7\tHow much would it cost for local unions to operate call centers?
\n\u00b7\tWould local unions be required to eliminate worksite-based organizers in order to fund the operation of call centers?
\n\u00b7\tHow many worksite-based organizers would be \u201credirected\u201d to other purposes?
\nRather than empowering SEIU members to build a strong, member-led union, call centers would strip away needed support, reduce the core functions of the union to \u201ccustomer-service\u201d, and undermine members\u2019 engagement and ownership of their union.
\nE. Consolidate Back-Office Services: <\/strong><\/em>
\nThe Stern Plan proposes consolidating the back-office functions of local unions such as dues processing, data storage, list management, accounting, financial reporting, management and information technology. By 2012, a new, centralized administrative-services organization would provide administrative services to a majority of SEIU members across North America. (p. 13) The plan does not indicate whether local union\u2019s transfer of their back-off services to this centralized organization will be mandatory or voluntary.
\nOn its face, this proposal appears innocuous and may be more cost-efficient than the current arrangement, in which each local union is responsible for its own back-office functions. However, the centralization of these services would sharply reduce the independence of local unions from their International Union. Local unions would lose some substantial measure of control over core areas of their organizational infrastructure, ranging from their finances and membership lists to their website and IT system. This proposal reflects the centralizing thrust of other initiatives contained in the Stern Plan, with obvious political implications that must be carefully considered. Furthermore, if local unions\u2019 administrative services are centralized, there is a very real chance that they could be used as a mechanism to impose political discipline on local unions that have disagreements with the International Union.
\nFor example, in recent months International Union leaders have used UHW\u2019s membership lists to wage an aggressive campaign of misinformation via direct mail, telephone calls and emails to UHW members. If local unions\u2019 back-office services were centralized, what would prevent International Union leaders from using these services as a tool to wage campaigns against dissenting local unions? How might leaders use their access to local unions\u2019 dues-processing and financial systems? Without iron-clad checks and balances, it would be dangerous to place all financial, IT and other operations under the control of International Union leaders.
\nF. Organizing: <\/strong><\/em>
\nAlthough the Stern Plan proposes a goal of increasing the union\u2019s membership by 500,000 members during the next four-year period, it offers no clear plan to accomplish this objective.
\n\u00b7\tDoes the organizing plan for 2008-12 propose to follow the same organizing strategy that the International Union pursued from 2004-08, which fell far short of its goals?
\n\u00b7\tIf the Stern Plan proposes a different organizing strategy, what are the differences?
\n\u00b7\tWill the organizing plan be guided by building power for workers in core industries (healthcare, property service and public sector) where 90% in healthcare and property service and 66% of the public sector workers are without a union?;
\n\u00b7\tWill the organizing plan strategically target industry sectors that will help us to protect and advance standards for our existing membership?
\n\u00b7\tWill the push to organize 500,000 workers move us to organize us what is easiest regardless of any strategy to build power and improve workers lives or are we prepared to dig in and do the work necessary to build strategically in the private sector and in the south and southwest?
\n\u00b7\tWhat will be the impact on building a national organizing program if the voice of members in democratic decision making and participation through their local union in bargaining, politics and organizing is lost in the new decision making structures proposed in the Stern Plan?
\nWithout concrete details about strategies and plans, the numerical goals described in the Stern Plan are merely numbers on a page.
\nLikewise, other elements of the organizing proposals lack sufficient detail to permit a clear and honest evaluation. For example, the plan proposes \u201cinvolving far more members and other activists in campaigns.\u201d While building a member organizing program is necessary for growth there needs to be a discussion and a plan that is based on best practices that helps us develop the vast member potential that exists. This should include a member organizer recruitment and development plan; member organizing programs within local unions and coordinated nationally so member organizing meets strategic growth needs.
\nIn order to grow strategically we need to build a movement where members are organizers of the unorganized. That will occur only when members are the critical decision makers in their union.
\nG. Membership Training and Leadership Development: <\/strong><\/em>
\nThe Stern Plan announces various goals aimed at raising \u201cmember action and participation\u201d to \u201ca whole new scale\u201d in order to \u201cunleash members\u2019 skills and talents.\u201d (p. 12) For example, the plan states that by 2012:
\n\u00b7\t\u201cat least 10% of SEIU members should play a leadership role in the union,\u201d and
\n\u00b7\t\u201ca majority of members should be involved in working to achieve our core goals.\u201d
\nWhile leadership development and membership training must be a primary goal of our union, it is unclear whether this proposal is a serious one. It offers no information about the strategy, funding, staffing or calendar for accomplishing its objectives. Furthermore, the campaign\u2019s goal \u2013 empowering rank-and-file leaders \u2013 is contradicted by another key element of the Stern Plan: reducing the power of rank-and-file members in key decision-making structures such as Unity Councils.
\nH. Politics: <\/strong><\/em>
\nThe Stern Plan sets out ambitious policy and electoral goals which we share, as well as quantitative objectives related to COPE, voter registration, member volunteer recruitment, infrastructure development and other political activities. Many of these objectives are sensible expansions and extensions of longstanding union programs. Other proposals sound sensible, yet lack substance and consequently are difficult to assess. For instance, it is hard to decipher what the Stern Plan means when it calls for developing a community strength program in which \u201cmembers are provided training and encouragement to deepen and expand their leadership role in the community.\u201d (p. 18)
\nWhat these proposals share in common, and share with the Stern plans prescriptions for other areas of union work, is that they lack sufficient attention to systematic leadership development, most often accomplished within local unions, which is the key ingredient for building a successful political program.
\nIn order to meet its lofty objectives, one might have expected the Stern plan to advance measures that would more concretely focus the union\u2019s political work in support of organizing drives and contract campaigns; give members more structured and more meaningful input in the vast political expenditures that SEIU will be undertaking and the ambitious legislative agenda it will be pursuing; and outline a real plan to provide the issue education, skills development and ongoing communications workers need to lead these efforts, but it is silent on these matters.
\nIn sum, beyond the bold pronouncement of \u201cJustice for All\u201d the main features of the Stern Plan reveal a program of \u201cControl for Just Us\u201d, a deepening of the direction established in the International Union during recent years: increasing centralization of resources and decision-making power in the hands of International Union officials in D.C. Not only would the Stern Plan centralize more dues money, it would make key decision-making bodies less democratic and would establish call centers and centralized back-office services covering a majority of SEIU members by 2012.
\nRecent actions in the Healthcare Division offer insight into how the International Union\u2019s drive towards centralization is likely to evolve. At a hastily convened jurisdictional hearing in February of 2008, International Union officials unveiled a proposal to create a national committee appointed by the International President that would assume wide-ranging powers over organizing, bargaining and employer relations with all Catholic healthcare providers in North America. Under this proposal, local unions would no longer be permitted to organize Catholic workers in the name of their local union. The national committee would approve collective bargaining agreements, conduct employer relations and even transfer union members from one local union to another under certain circumstances. While the hearing officer\u2019s recommendation on this proposal has been postponed, the proposal nonetheless reveals a vision of a more centralized union held by International leaders. It offers a glimpse at how leaders would dramatically redraw the relative powers of local unions and the International Union.
\nIII. Where would the Justice for All Plan lead our union?
\nIn order to fully evaluate the Stern Plan and understand where it would lead our union, it is necessary to consider the plan within the larger context of SEIU\u2019s recent historical development.
\nDuring recent years, our entire union has achieved some important successes. A strong commitment of resources to organizing has allowed thousands of new members to join our union. We have also become a powerful political force and waged many successful electoral campaigns. Lastly, many corrupt and ineffective SEIU locals have been transformed. These are progressive victories worth celebrating.
\nHowever, in recent years President Stern and other International leaders have begun pushing a strategy that fails to empower workers and instead seeks to accommodate – and in some instances, perpetuate – the entrenched interests of corporate America. The Stern administration\u2019s current path is characterized by the following elements:
\n\u00b7\tA centralization of our union\u2019s resources and decision-making power in the hands of International Union officials in D.C.;
\n\u00b7\tA membership growth strategy that mainly relies on (1) reducing employer opposition to organizing by putting employers\u2019 interests first and accepting long term limits on workers\u2019 voices and standards of compensation, and (2) targeting organizing resources at publicly funded services that offer less resistance to unionization but provide few solutions to our union\u2019s need to organize the private-sector companies in our industries.
\n\u00b7\tThe merging of many locals into mega-locals, which has helped President Stern to assemble a bloc of loyal supporters on the International Executive Board, the union\u2019s chief decision-making body; and
\n\u00b7\tA failure to pursue strategies – such as leadership development, aggressive bargaining and member engagement in decisions like employer agreements – that systematically empower workers and provide them greater control of their union.
\nIn sum, the Stern administration is increasingly pursuing a top-down, employer-oriented unionism that seeks to expand the union through short cuts and concessionary labor\/business deals rather than methodically building a bottom-up union that empowers workers and enables them win meaningful improvements in their lives.
\nStern\u2019s style of unionism is reflected in a recent article, in which he contrasts his vision for American unions with that of unions in the 1930s, when workers won large improvements in their wages and working conditions and challenged the political status quo. According to Stern, \u201calmost all labor issues in the 1930s pitted American unions against American businesses. The relationship was almost always adversarial. Today, America needs to act more as a team and create a new plan to compete in a global economy.\u201d Elsewhere, Stern describes his principles for \u201ceffective twenty-first century unions,\u201d including: \u201cEmployees and employers need organizations that solve problems, not create them.\u201d
\nStern\u2019s vision for twenty-first century unions ignores the underlying economic realities and power dynamics that shape our society and our workplaces. Stern\u2019s hope that corporations will somehow be persuaded to forfeit some of their core business priorities without a fight is misguided. Worse yet, this vision will severely undermine our union\u2019s effectiveness when it\u2019s used to guide our union\u2019s strategic orientation, priorities and future development. Top-down, employer-oriented, \u201ccustomer service\u201d unionism will shrink our union\u2019s power by undermining its core strength and main basis of power \u2013 organized, engaged members who are empowered to make decisions for themselves.
\nStern\u2019s approach seeks a quick fix to the decades-long decline in union density by pursuing concessionary organizing agreements with employers. While his approach may produce large numbers of new members in the short term, it will ultimately undermine our strength if it locks workers into substandard contracts and constrains their ability to build effective unions to respond to workers\u2019 needs.
\nAt the end of the day, says Dan Gallin (former General Secretary of the International Union of Foodworkers), building unions \u201ccannot be done by smoke and mirrors and by branding exercises.\u201d They must be built \u201cin the way genuine trade unionism is built anywhere: by education and organization from the bottom up, by organizations that are accountable to their membership.\u201d
\nOur union stands at an important moment in its history and must carefully evaluate the direction embraced by Stern\u2019s brand of unionism. The \u201cJustice for All\u201d Plan would accelerate the Stern administration\u2019s current trajectory by allowing leaders of the International union to impose their vision with greater ease. It would do this by centralizing decision making power in the hands of International Union officials and systematically dismantling workers\u2019 shop-floor power as well as their role in inter-local coordinating structures like Unity Councils and other key decision-making bodies.
\nDoes Stern\u2019s style of trade unionism build real power that enables workers to produce meaningful improvements for workers and their families, for our share of the corporate interests that dominate our economy? Or does it reflect a misreading of the forces at play in our society and of the requirements for building power?
\nIV. What are alternative proposals? What are the key differences between these competing proposals?
\nIn contrast to the Stern Plan, UHW has an alternative plan called \u201cThe Platform for Change\u201d that will make SEIU stronger, more democratic and more effective at improving the lives of workers across North America. UHW\u2019s 100 plus-person Executive Board submitted a set of proposals to the 2008 SEIU Convention that are designed to protect members\u2019 rights, strengthen our International Union\u2019s democratic structure and improve workers\u2019 ability to coordinate bargaining and organizing campaigns across local unions.
\nThese proposals respond to the twin forces that are reshaping our International Union: (1) the centralization of power and resources in our International union, which threatens to erode individual members\u2019 rights and powers and (2) the growing need for coordination among local unions to take on the large employers that increasingly dominate our industries.
\nUHW\u2019s proposals, which will be presented to the Convention in the form of amendments to SEIU\u2019s constitution, would make a set of sensible reforms aimed at democratizing our union and setting it on a course to build an effective and durable workers\u2019 organization that can win the improvements desperately needed by so many workers across North America.
\nRather than debating the competing proposals on their merits, International Union leaders have sought to deliberately confuse and mischaracterize the terms of the debate. International Union leaders have urged SEIU members to embrace its \u201cJustice for All\u201d platform because it stands in such stark contrast to a frightening alternative: a \u201cJust Us\u201d form of unionism that they allege is being advocated in certain corners of SEIU. This begs the question of who, exactly, is advocating a \u201cJust Us\u201d form of unionism? SEIU does not name anyone specifically, although it is implied that UHW is in favor of \u201cJust Us\u201d unionism.
\nThese claims are entirely untrue. UHW is the fastest growing union in SEIU. Since 2001, UHW has organized more than 60,000 workers and has dedicated huge numbers of staff and member organizers, as well as tens of millions of dollars of UHW members\u2019 dues money, to assist organizing drives in a half dozen states across the U.S. We have also used our substantial power with key employers like Catholic Healthcare West, Tenet Healthcare, HCA and Kaiser Permanente to extend organizing rights to other states and to help raise wages and workplace standards at other SEIU locals.
\n\u201cJust Us\u201d unionism is simply a straw man designed by International Union leaders to distract attention from the real debate facing our union. SEIU leaders have sought to deliberately mischaracterize UHW\u2019s Platform for Change and accompanying Constitutional amendments in an effort to avoid having an open and honest discussion about the important challenges and opportunities facing our union.
\nThe following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the two platforms\u2019 positions on various issues.
\nJustice for All Plan\tPlatform for Change
\nDevelop a strategy to organize the unorganized?\tYes\tYes
\nRequire each local union to provide 20% of its annual organizing budget to Industry Divisions\tYes\tLocal unions would transfer only the funds from their organizing budget that they fail to use
\nDirect election of SEIU\u2019s president and officers\tNo\tYes
\nCreate national strike fund\tNo\tYes
\nGuarantee members\u2019 right to decide mergers on a local-by-local vote rather than a pooled voting system\tNo\tYes
\nGuarantee members\u2019 right to elect their bargaining committees\tLeaves decision to local unions\tYes
\nGuarantee members\u2019 right to approve any agreement that affects wages and working conditions \tNo\tYes
\nGuarantee members\u2019 right to approve contract proposals\tLeaves decision to local unions\tYes
\nRequire each Industry Division to democratically establish minimum contract standards and program to win\tNo\tYes
\nMaintain Unity Councils and formalize procedures and structures to coordinate multi-local bargaining\tNo\tYes
\nReplace Unity Councils with less democratic National Bargaining Teams\tYes\tNo
\nEstablish objective criteria and use independent fact finders for merger hearings\tNo\tYes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"