Doug Henwood Talks

http://www.sfweekly.com/2007-04-11/news/union-disunity/print

Union Disunity The secret deal worked out between SEIU bosses and nursing home =

owners denies union members the right to speak out, strike, or =

protect patients By Matt Smith Published: April 11, 2007

=93With time, my loss of Cassie began to transform the way I approached =

life.=94 =97Andy Stern, Getting America Back on Track: A Country That Works, =

Simon & Schuster, 2006

=93It is as if he cant help conflating the fate of workers with the =

fate of his daughter.=94 =97Matt Bai, New York Times Magazine, Jan. 30, 2005

=93When she died it broke my heart,=94 he says. =93It just gave me the =

strength to say, =91Speak out; dont be afraid.’=94 =93One brave thing he’s done is pursue a partnership with corporate =

America.=94

=97Leslie Stahl, CBS News, May 14, 2006

In the above excerpted narrative, repeated ad nauseam in Service =

Employees International Union (SEIU) press materials, union president =

Andy Stern emerged from a personal catastrophe differently than =

others who face crisis in middle age.

Stern did not turn to sports cars, young girlfriends, adventure =

athletics, or otherwise immerse himself in narcissism after his 13- =

year-old daughter died from surgery complications, his wife later =

divorced him, and he took to dining alone in bars.

Instead, Stern has said in his book and to newspaper and magazine =

writers, the 2002 personal tragedy caused him to become something of =

a combined Steve Jobs and Martin Luther King, a futuristic innovator =

applying his genius to empowering disenfranchised workers in his 1.8- =

million-member SEIU, where Stern became president in 1996.

The union left the umbrella of the AFL-CIO in 2005, based on the idea =

that the old trades federation was a stodgy, backward-looking =

organization not focused enough on growth.

Key to Stern’s characterization of himself as a new, different type =

of labor leader is his assertion that the SEIU is leaving behind the =

old class-struggle-style unionism pitting employees against bosses. =

In its place is a modern template where workers and employers seek to =

advance interests they hold in common.

“Employees and employers need organizations that solve problems, not =

create them,” Stern wrote in A Country That Works. “Nursing home =

owners and SEIU leaders are formulating a new national labor- =

management committee and new state-based relationships to promote =

quality and employer economic stability. In California, the industry =

and union worked with the legislature on a plan to enhance quality in =

nursing homes, stabilize the work force, and provide more resources =

for direct patient care.”

However, there’s another trove of literature describing the recent =

history of Stern’s SEIU, one that’s quite different than the Cassie- =

focused genre popular in newsstands and on bookshelves. It’s =

contained in secret for-top-union-officials-eyes-only contracts, =

memos, lobbying agreements, and analysis reports obtained from =

various sources by SF Weekly. They illustrate the details of a =

sweetheart deal between the SEIU and California nursing home =

companies that impair, rather than empower, workers and patients, =

while inflating dues-paying union ranks.

These documents suggest Stern’s post-Cassie leadership of the SEIU =

shares little in common with Martin Luther King, and doesn’t involve =

much real innovation. Instead, it’s merely a re-hash of the sort of =

sweetheart company-union labor deals that have marred the reputation =

of trade unionism throughout history. It has involved trading away =

workers’ free-speech rights, selling out their ability to improve =

working conditions, and relinquishing their capability to improve pay =

and benefits, in order to expand the SEIU’s and Stern’s own power.

As testament to how little interest Stern’s SEIU has in explaining to =

the public, or to union workers, the inner workings of its modern, =

employer-friendly style of leadership, 10 requests for interviews to =

officials at Stern’s Washington headquarters, and to union officials =

in Northern and Southern California, went unanswered.

In spite of the official silence, union memos obtained by SF Weekly =

also point to a serious rift between Stern and Sal Rosselli, =

president of SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, an Oakland-based =

140,000-member local representing workers in California hospitals, =

nursing homes, and other health facilities. The fight is over whether =

the union should continue its current, Stern-backed strategy of =

expanding membership by giving up workers’ rights, and the rights of =

patients they serve, through “partnerships with corporate America” =

such as the nursing home pact mentioned in A Country That Works.

Or should the union seek to expand the old-fashioned way, through =

recruitment, political pressure, picketing and other protests, =

lawsuits, alliances with advocacy groups, and pointing out corporate =

abuses to the press?

Officials with Sal Rosselli’s UHW-West have apparently taken a strong =

stand saying corporate-friendly alliances aren’t the panacea Stern =

makes them out to be.

And documents I’ve obtained suggest that regardless of the image =

crafted by his own brilliant public relations, Stern has tread a =

route common among men who’ve suffered crippling late-life personal =

setbacks. He’s become ornery in his old age.

Sal Rosselli won’t answer questions when I call him on his cellphone. =

And judging from the wall of silence I’ve received from some other =

officials in his local, he’s apparently instructed the rest of his =

staff to do the same.

Notwithstanding, secret SEIU documents I’ve obtained have made me =

come to respect Rosselli’s style of union leadership. Leaked SEIU =

contracts, memos, and reports, as well as off-the-record interviews =

with some union insiders, suggest Rosselli has been engaged in a =

showdown with Stern over the rights of unionized health care workers, =

and of the patients they care for.

According to a recent report prepared by UHW-West, Stern’s brand of =

corporate collaboration has done little for the SEIU besides =

inflating the membership rolls with workers who’ve received hardly =

any benefit from union membership.

At issue is a 2003 agreement between the SEIU and a group of =

California nursing home chains. According to this pact, its terms =

would be kept secret, and otherwise “be held in confidence to the =

full extent allowed by law.” Notwithstanding, I received two copies =

of the misleadingly named “Agreement to Advance the Future of Nursing =

Home Care in California,” from different sources last month. I have =

also obtained a copy of a similar agreement recently negotiated =

between the SEIU and nursing home chains in Washington state, which =

involves similar tradeoffs between the SEIU and nursing home chains.

The California agreement was set to expire at the end of last year; =

the union and the nursing homes are currently negotiating a possible =

extension. Whether, or how, the agreement will be extended may have =

been thrown in doubt thanks to complaints about the current agreement =

coming from Rosselli’s UHW-West.

On the SEIU’s side of the 2003 bargain, the union agreed to use its =

clout with Democratic legislators in Sacramento to accomplish three =

goals of interest to nursing home owners:

The SEIU pledged to use its lobbying muscle to pass a 2004 bill =

increasing MediCal subsidies to nursing homes by more than $2 billion =

over four years, according to patient advocates. The bill passed, =

creating a windfall for nursing home owners.

The union also agreed to attempt to pass tort reform legislation that =

would have limited patients’ right to sue in the event they were =

neglected, raped, abused, or killed. (The union’s tort reform =

lobbying efforts were put on hold, however, after a 2004 SF Weekly =

story led union members and advocacy groups to complain.)

The SEIU also pledged in the 2003 pact to staunch any efforts by =

patient advocates to push for legislation or regulations requiring =

nursing homes to provide enough staff to keep patients safe and =

healthy, unless the nursing home companies agree to such reforms in =

advance. The SEIU will “oppose any long-term-care-specific staffing =

and reimbursement legislation or regulation that fails to meet =

mutually agreed objectives,” the agreement states.

According to lobbyists for nursing home patients, the union has =

indeed been successful in repressing efforts by nursing home =

advocates to pass legislation that would have tied increases in state =

nursing home subsidies to improvements in the quality of care.

In return, the nursing home chain owners agreed to allow the SEIU to =

recruit workers into their union. Under ordinary circumstances, =

nursing home owners vigorously resist union organizing drives by =

occasionally intimidating and firing union-sympathetic workers, and =

by attempting to convince them that union membership isn’t in their =

interest. Under the lobbying agreement, however, the nursing home =

chains would refrain from these tactics in a certain number of =

facilities if the union helped to pass the 2004 funding bill, and in =

more facilities if the union got tort reform legislation passed.

So far, workers in some 42 nursing homes have joined the SEIU in this =

way, according to a union report.

This membership gain has allowed the union to publicly characterize =

the lobbying deal as a means to improve the quality of care for =

nursing home patients, while improving wages, benefits, and working =

conditions for people who care for the aged and infirm.

This is the new era of worker-employer collaboration touted in =

Stern’s book, and in articles that characterize him as a bold =

modernizer. Journalists, however, appear to have been so caught up in =

Stern’s tactic of getting weepy about his deceased daughter during =

interviews that they’ve failed to find out exactly what it is he’s =

talking about.

If they had, they would have discovered a monumental catch: workers =

who joined the union specifically as part of the 2003 agreement with =

nursing home chains, an agreement that is supposed to be a national =

model for corporate collaboration, get a severely stripped-down =

version of union representation. In important ways, the agreement =

causes workers to lose rights rather than gain them.

Under the 2003 lobbying pact, all nursing home workers entering the =

union under the auspices of the agreement would work under uniform, =

employer-friendly labor contracts called “template agreements.”

These agreements specify that the union is not allowed to report =

health care violations to state regulators, to other public =

officials, or to journalists, except in cases where the employees are =

required by law to report egregious cases of neglect and abuse to the =

state. The agreements also prohibit the unionized workers from =

picketing, and negotiating improvements in health care or other =

benefits. They prohibit the workers from having a say in their job =

conditions.

According to the template contract, employers have the “exclusive =

right to manage the business.”

This means the owners set pay rates, pay increases, and incentive =

plans. They hire, lay off, demote, discipline, and determine benefits =

for workers without union input. The employers may outsource work =

performed by union members, and speed up, reassign, or eliminate jobs =

at will. The employer may eliminate vacations, or any other time off, =

as the employer sees fit.

The agreement also guarantees that workers’ wages will not put an =

employer at an “economic disadvantage,” either through employee pay, =

benefits, or through staff-per-patient ratios.

To advocates for health care consumers, contract language =

guaranteeing the union will refrain from reporting poor nursing home =

conditions to state regulators is particularly appalling.

“This is a sector where caregivers are the eyes and the ears and the =

witnesses when there is abuse. To tie their hands and to tie their =

tongues is to let people die. That’s immoral and a terrible thing for =

a nursing home worker to have to live with,” says Jamie Court, =

president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, and =

author of Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal =

Freedom. “I’ve never seen a labor union except for the SEIU enter =

into a top-down, industry-friendly agreement that binds the hands of =

the workers.”

The agreement doesn’t merely prohibit workers from attempting to =

complain about their lot once they’ve signed a union contract. It =

also puts a halt on any traditional unionizing drive in other nursing =

homes owned by a chain that is party to the lobbying agreement =97 even =

in cases where workers have expressed interest in joining the SEIU.

“There’s a struggle going on at the SEIU, and the struggle is, what =

kind of unionism is being advanced? Are these agreements that lay the =

ground for voluntary recognition? Or are they in fact =

straightjackets?” said Bill Fletcher, a visiting professor at City =

University of New York, who formerly held the SEIU position of =

assistant to the president for the East and South.

It’s from studying that internal SEIU struggle that I’ve discovered =

new respect for UHW-West under Rosselli’s leadership.

That union local recently issued a report analyzing the 2003 lobbying =

pact from the workers’ perspective.

The report, titled “The California Alliance Agreement: Lessons =

Learned in Moving Forward,” suggests that the agreement resulted in =

subsidies that fattened nursing home profits, and handcuffed workers, =

while inhibiting the union’s chances at ever negotiating legitimate =

labor contracts that truly enhanced workers’ lives.

“Alliance-based template agreements do not allow workers to empower =

themselves,” the UHW-West analysis report says. “Is it any wonder =

that we have often heard from these workers that ‘the boss brought us =

the union?’”

The report can be read as a repudiation of Stern’s brave new path, =

coming out of the biggest health care workers’ union local in the =

western U.S.

“Clearly this is an internal polemic against the direction coming out =

of Washington,” Fletcher notes.

Indeed, the UHW-West report comes near calling the 2003 agreement a =

sellout.

For one thing, the union might have been able to expand, while =

obtaining greater benefits for workers, without any agreement at all. =

“Many workers at Alliance nursing homes throughout California were =

precluded from organizing,” the UHW-West report says.

Those workers who were assimilated into the SEIU through the lobbying =

deal were introduced to a paltry version of trade unionism, the =

report says.

“If the nature of the labor agreement defined in the current Alliance =

templates =97 which restrict members’ rights and ability to be =

empowered =97 is allowed to continue, what effect will this have on the =

fundamental nature of a union organization? What ultimately happens =

if we give up the right to strike as the means for workers to level =

the playing field with employers when needed?” the report says. “We =

would argue that it would adversely affect our mission and goal to =

advance and defend the interests of our members, and in fact, may =

come close to becoming close to what have historically been called =

‘company’ unions.”

According to the “Lessons Learned” report, the UHW surveyed 1,600 =

members who were under these Alliance template contracts. The =

workers’ No. 1 complaint: Short staffing at these nursing homes =

hampered their ability to provide quality care for patients.

Indeed, short staffing is cited in news stories, in lawsuit =

complaints, and by public health advocates as the primary cause =

behind cases of neglect where patients develop bedsores, are left =

covered in their own feces, or die needlessly of festering illnesses =

or injuries.

Ironically, the SEIU’s 2003 MediCal subsidy bill was touted as a way =

to help nursing homes afford to hire enough caregivers to adequately =

provide for patients.

Instead, the Lessons Learned report claims, the nursing home chains =

used an inordinate amount of the increased state subsidies to fatten =

profits, rather than increase staffing levels.

According to the UHW-West analysis, nursing homes organized under the =

agreement received $119 million in added MediCal subsidies during the =

‘06-07 funding year thanks to the 2005 nursing home funding bill the =

SEIU led the effort to pass. But those same employers will only spend =

$21 million of that money on personnel in those facilities.

“Did we sell ourselves short?” the UHW-West study asks, leaving the =

answer implicit: absolutely.

In what some view as payback for UHW-West’s role in speaking up for =

the rights of nursing home workers and patients, the union’s =

Washington headquarters has moved to strip the local of its ability =

to represent nursing home workers.

During a 2006 statewide reorganization of SEIU locals, in which =

California union locals merged along industry lines, Stern’s =

representatives recommended that all the state’s nursing home workers =

be reassigned to a new bargaining unit run out of Los Angeles by a =

Stern ally named Tyrone Freeman.

Freeman is reportedly more amenable than Rosselli to the “collaborate- =

with-corporate-America” style of worker organizing alluded to in A =

Country That Works. Freeman did not return calls requesting comment.

“I would be likely to offer up my Southern California buildings =

first, because the Southern California union reps are simply more =

pleasant, more cooperative, and more pragmatic,” said Greg Stapley, =

spokesman for California’s fifth-largest nursing home chain, the =

Ensign Group.

Though Ensign is not currently part of the agreement with the SEIU, =

Stapley has been sitting in on negotiation meetings with a thought to =

joining.

Indeed, according to a Jan. 13 memo to UHW-West board members from =

the local’s director for nursing home organizing, Freeman’s local =

“literally said that the union should have no say on things like what =

shifts the workers should work.”

This attitude has earned the favor of nursing home owners, the memo =

said.

“The operators indicated very strongly that they do not want SEIU to =

‘run’ their facilities and that their position on any new agreement =

meant that the current ‘template’ contract would remain intact.”

Rosselli’s UHW, meanwhile, has said in negotiations that “the =

template must go, that workers as health care providers need a voice =

and rights on the job,” the memo said.

Rosselli has so far struggled to resist efforts by the national union =

to dilute his power. A recent Stern memo, however, suggests the =

possibility exists that nursing home workers currently represented by =

UHW-West could eventually be moved to the Long Term Care Workers’ =

local run by Freeman.

Stern’s “corporate collaboration” rhetoric aside, the facts of the =

California Alliance agreement demonstrate that workers and employers =

don’t have the same interests.

“You can get a condominium of interests that includes the union, but =

excludes the union member. He doesn’t get self-determination, doesn’t =

get the full market value that strong collective bargaining would =

give him. He doesn’t get the right to be a citizen, and be able to =

complain about a situation where they aren’t treating clients =

properly,” says Robert Fitch, author of Solidarity for Sale: How =

Corruption Destroyed the Labor Movement and Undermined America’s =

Promise.

Somehow, though, Stern has managed to get journalists to look past =

possible downsides of his new labor paradigm by offering up a =

compelling story line, where a labor leader is impelled by the death =

of his daughter to become courageous, and to make a real stamp on the =

world.

Though American newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and television =

stations don’t employ labor reporters anymore, they’ve got plenty of =

business writers. And if those journalists know anything, it’s that =

there’s truth in numbers. The union’s membership numbers are up every =

year =97 “1.8 million members and growing” is www.seiu.org’s homepage =

tagline.

Making Stern’s ideas even more attractive, the man is constantly =

doing things that are just plain newsy. In February he appeared with =

the head of Wal-Mart giving lip service to the idea of universal =

health care. Before that, he was meeting with leaders of China’s =

government-controlled national labor union =97 the one with the =

reputation for worker suppression. And in 2004 he was quoted saying =

that his union might be better off if George Bush beat John Kerry. =

And then there’s the intriguing underlying story line: the anti- =

intuitive idea that workers and the boss are actually on the same =

team. For story-hungry hacks, what’s not to like about all that?

Stern “does things that are very provocative. Unless you dig into it, =

you say, hey, the guy is full of good ideas,” says Fletcher, the =

former SEIU organizer who teaches at CUNY. “The fact is, workers and =

employers are going to clash. And they have contradictory interests. =

Andy obscures that question, and that helps explain the attraction he =

has for Fortune, for Business Week. “

Buoyed by a cushion of flattering press, the SEIU and nursing home =

owners are now in talks to extend the cynically named “Agreement to =

Advance the Future of Nursing Home Care in California.”

If the pact is extended as a result of current negotiations, the SEIU =

would lobby for a new piece of California legislation adding hundreds =

of millions of dollars of enhanced state Medical subsidies to nursing =

home companies. In return, the SEIU would be allowed to gain members =

in additional nursing homes, according to a version of the agreement =

currently under discussion.

However, a Bay Area union local that’s party to those negotiations =

has pointed out that the reality behind SEIU’s policy of joining =

hands with corporate America is far worse than the hype.

I urge UHW-West leader Sal Rosselli, along with any other SEIU =

members with a conscience, to work toward the next logical step. It’s =

time to scuttle this pact before it causes the waste of more tax =

dollars, diminishes the rights of more workers, and helps endanger =

the lives of more elderly and disabled nursing home patients.

Somehow, I believe Cassie might have wanted it that way.

To read the report from the United Healthcare Workers West on the =

agreement between nursing home owners and the SEIU, click here. http://media.sfweekly.com/789842.0.pdf

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.