UNITE HERE dissidents to join SEIU

Sorry, here's the source:

Ben Smith's Blog: Dissident union group joins SEIU

Ben Smith also reports the response from the other camp here: Wilhelm blasts SEIU, "Czar Stern" [2]

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

I dont' want to get caught in the crossfire.

Unfortunately I think a lot of workers are going to get "caught in the crossfire." The timing of this dispute couldn't possibly be worse, with the economic crisis devastating the hospitality industry and the fight over EFCA in the U.S. Congress (as well as the rest of labour's economic agenda in both Canada and the U.S.) desperately needing all union activists' full attention.

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

This dispute didn't just start recently, Unite Here has had problems for quite some time and it just didn't work. Nice to see Danny Glover still stands with Workers United. One has to wait and see how this will work out.

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

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

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

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

Couldn't help but get involved in this discussion. As I read the posts and refer to the online debates it seems to me we are all guilty of a little labour "reality show" voyeurism.  As this merger comes to an end there is bound to be some dirty laundry and unpleasant wrangling. In the interests of the membership and the health of the movement this really should have happened behind closed doors. The consensus forming by all but a few diehard activists is that UNITE and HERE should get on with it and save us all the gory details. Clearly Workers United has done just that, its now time for HERE to step up and tell us where they're going and how they plan to get there. Some maturity is the least we should expect from leadership.

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

I'm not sure this is proof that SEIU knows how to organize. But it might be proof that SEIU is a powerful, effective union - at least in some people's eyes.

 That said, SEIU - it's impossible to deny - is growing and doing a lot to reverse the trend in declining union density. Sometimes their tactics are dubious (virtual sweeheart deals a la CAW's "Magna" contracts). Sometimes they're inspired and effective (Justce for Janitors). A lot of terrain in between.

The "worst union" knock makes absolutely no sense. Hoping aka Mycroft will come back and explain further.

In the meantime, I'll bemoan the fact that - at a point when US labor is about to turn things around - infighting seems to be breaking out everywhere.

That said: there was a lot of infighting and turf wars when John L Lewis was creating the CIO sixty years ago.

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

Never heard of this. Got a source?

This article in the Nation goes into both sides of a so-called "sweetheart" deal. It's not always straightforward.

Interesting article.

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

Interesting article from the NY Daily News.

Service Employees International Union president goes to the extreme

Intro: 

"Andy Stern, president of the powerful Service Employees International Union [15], seems hellbent on using classic corporate raider tactics to bring a huge portion of the U.S. [16] labor movement under his absolute control."

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_service_employees_international_union_pr.html [17]

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

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

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

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

"In speaking with colleagues in the United States it is evident that this merger, despite best of intentions, has clearly failed."

-- President of National Union of Public and General Employees (Canada) James Clancy, letter dated 3/16/09

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

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

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

so if the merger is not working, and HERE continues to hold UNITE members and there assets hostage; then sometimes larger players need to get involved and help defend the rights of UNITE members and assets, and in this context that meant SEIU.

after this is all said and done HERE will shrink and eventually become extinct because they have no ability to handle money.  they will go bankrupt fairly quickly, and SEIU Workers United will organize all around, and finally non-union hospitality workers will finally get a voice on the job.

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

robbie dee,

I'm not sure how much the members were actually consulted during this initial process. It appears, through various media sources, that this was a plan that was developed by Raynor and Stern and then rolled out to the members of the Unite faction. Perhaps Raynor did approach other Union's that would have been more aligned from a jurisdictional perspective (ie USW) but they were opposed (unlike SEIU) to entering into a raiding scenario. Also I think that Raynor knew that legally/constitutionally that he was on shaky ground with the splinter group and needed someone with a very big bat that had a history of 'growth at any cost' - at least in the US.

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

It would appear that this battle will continue for sometime. It is rather a bizarre situation where Raynor has led the secession drive yet remains as the President of UNITE HERE.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/Criminal_allegations_in_union_fight.html

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

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

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

Seeing as how Unite owned the bank long before the 2004 merger and obviously trusted the merger was for the good of the labour movement, they saw no reason to protect their assets. Sad fact is HERE obviously had an agenda as I've said before and it wasn't for the good of the labour movement. It would seem since HERE is in federal court fighting for control of UNITE'S Amalgamated bank that it, HERE, wasn't in this merger for the member's or the labour movement.. One must also ask since HERE has the majority why then was it on the verge of bankruptcy previous to the 2004 merger???? What were the members dues used for???? As for the SEIU affiliation at least Worker's United learned it's lesson and has protected it's assets.......

In Canada on April 1 2008 Paul Clifford sent a letter that started with "In view of our inability to agree on an equitable continuation of the Merger Agreement we hereby request Ontario Council to return to Local 75 a list of properties". So you see stop raiding this didn't start with Stern or SEIU, this started with HERE wanting to control finances and assets it hadn't earned otherwise why would they be in court fighting for something that wasn't their's in the first place? And sorry to say only became their's because UNITE trusted HERE......So no protection of assets. Stupid of UNITE???? Maybe

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

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

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

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

Vivienne:

Did the workers in your shop vote on joining SEIU?

What were the results of the vote?

How many people voted (out of how many total workers)?

What was the percentage in favour of joining SEIU and what was the percentage against?

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

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

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

willow, this is an interesting comment:

"There is real strength in members from different industries coming together in one union..."

I would be interested in people views in regard to the notion of organizing any workers in any sector versus efforts by specific unions to focus on increasing density within respective sectors. CTW attempted to try and define juisdictional areas as these unions saw the value of sectoral organzing as a means of optimizing the power and influence of members within their respective sectors. 

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

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

the question of CULT has come up in this discussion.  HERE is very much like a CULT.  this was posted on another thread: thoughts?

i've known of HERE staff going through this practice of pink sheeting and the person Amelia was working in Arizona.

HERE Pink Sheeting and Cult

HERE is nothing but a small cult in the labour movement.

HERE practices something called "pink sheeting", and there is currently a legal case against HERE from former staff and members regarding the practice of pink sheeting.  

Essentially pink sheeting is when HERE Management forces staff and members to tell them about deeply personal matters including family dysfunctions, health and financial troubles, spousal abuse, addictions, and childhood traumas.  These conversations are then written on an HERE pink sheet and it is used to manipulate the staff or member.  If you do not share these personal stories you are FIRED.

This is a quote from a former HERE organizer who was pink sheeted:

"I was forced to share things that had been painful for me in one-on-ones with my supervisor Brendon Walsh and also group staff meetings where I was pushed until I broke down in tears.  I was forced to tell people about my struggles with depression.  Yet I was still told that wasn't deep enough.  My supervisor kept insisting that I must resent my parents, that there must be some dirty family secret I wasn't sharing, that I must have something more personal and diffiucult to share" - Amelia Frank-Vitale, Testimony to Vice President of UNITE HERE

This invasive practice is coercive, despicable, and intolerable.  The BOSSES within HERE Local 75 have been identified to craft and practice this method.  They infact practice pink sheeting on a daily basis in there offices and this is now going to be taking place at the OFL building.  Those of us working at the OFL building should go and investigate this illegal practice of pink sheeting.  

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

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

there is a grievance being heard on the practice of pink sheeting, it is now in the Arbitration stage.  Staff and members are testifying against HERE Bosses for being pink sheeted.  Amelia's quote is from her statement on pink sheeting.

 the arbitration is being carried out in New York City, New York at the UNITE HERE International Headquarters - 275 7th Avenue, New York, New York, USA, 10001

there is nothing online about the practice of pink sheeting, but i am pretty sure more will be spilling out shortly. 

go to this website: http://www.fixourunion.org/soc.html [36] , and it refers to members' privacy being invaded =

"President John Wilhelm is focused on himself, not UNITE HERE members. He funds locals and campaigns that increase his power and financial control. He even uses his power to help “organizers” invade your personal privacy."

the above refers to pink sheeting.

just because there is not something posted online, it does not mean that the practice of pink sheeting exists. pink sheeting is internally embedded within HERE, a lot of is only now being made public.

there is a committee within UNITE that is trying to stop HERE pink sheeting, you can email them here:

The Committee to Stop the Pink Sheet

stopthepinksheetnow@gmail.com [37]

101 West 23rd Street #141, New York, New York, 10011

@ Jumping Janice

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may be right. Certainly UNITE was a dying union from a industry perspective (garment, light manufacturing) while hospitality and gaming had ample opportunities for growth. The UNITE HERE merger would have given UNITE a clear jurisdictional path - hotels, gaming, food/multiservice.

However my understanding was that CTW as a breakaway would place greater emphasis and resources into organizing but doing so in a manner that respected existing jurisdictions. My understanding was that CTW had developed a sector coordinating committee and I was of the assumption that the various members of CTW would focus on their key jurisdictions.

On the surface it does apear to be a merger that would serve both founding entities and allow the new merged entity to increase it's sectoral density. I think some of the key differences were the cultural differences in regards to the models of organizing (bottom-up versus top-down, hot-shopping vs deep committee building) as well as their respective commitments toward industry (or even geographic) density (sectoral union density vs nominal density in various sectors).

Vivienne:

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

How many delegates from your particular workplace went to Philadelphia?

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

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

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

How many workers in your workplace voted?

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

the HERE faction - cult is controlled by a bunch of :

racist, white, starbucks drinking, Yale University graduates 

Staff of HERE are just staff, they are mostly graduates of Yale University.  As soon as they start working for HERE, they are hired because John Wilhelm (HERE cult leader) was a Yale grad, they start paying dues and call themselves rank and file members.  From there they hijack the union by running for positions like local president, even though they have never cleaned a hotel room in there lives.  The Yale staff are all white, racist, and drink starbucks. 

In HERE's world - professional staff are forced to become members and then eventually hijack the union from its own members.  In every local election - its staff that vote, just like in Local 75 - professional union staff voted in the professional union staff president, he is not hotel worker or a member, but claims to be president.

Does anyone think this is CORRUPT?

Now lets start speaking of union democracy. 

UNITE HERE or UNITE or HERE or SEIU - none are democratic, so stop pretending that they are.  Some of those entities have various forms of "controlled democracies". 

However, the one thing is that UNITE or SEIU are not cult like.  HERE on the other hand is cult like through there "pink sheeting" and how everyone in there leadership and union come from Yale University. 

by the way, "stop raiding", "tw", "3to1" - seems like all of you are speaking from the same mouth, or should i say keyboard - the practice of "pink sheeting" is very relevant, its emotional blackmail and torture, and its just one of the many differences between UNITE and HERE.   

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

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

Vivienne:

Jumping Janice says that neither UNITE, HERE or SEIU are democratic.  Do you agree?

Jumping Janice says the real difference between these three un-democratic organizations is that, of the three, only HERE is a cult.  Do you agree?

I asked you simple questions with, I assume, factual answers about democracy in your union.  If there is real democracy, why won't you answer?

Public pronouncements about union democracy are nice, but the devil is in the details.

Jumping Janice:

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

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

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

What brand of coffee does she drink?

Jumping Janice and Vivienne, I would like to thank you both for sharing your first-hand experience and opinions as members in these unions. I have learned a lot from your posts, information that I had not come across anywhere else, and which has influenced my own point of view not only regarding your unions' issues, but also my own.

The view from the top is a broader perspective, it is important and helpful, but inevitably there is always some degree of failing to recognize or give credit to the day to day realities that we deal with in the rank and file.

Vivenne and Jumping Janice:

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

I'm not sure of the brand but I bet it ain't fair trade!

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

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

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

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

viv - well said sister!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Jumping Janice and Willow....Yes we at Workers United Local 2347 are extremely impressed with the strength, courage and stamina Diane showed through this campaign... It maybe a small shop but it is now ORGANIZED. Even although there's alot of internal political b s going on we still are managing to ORGANIZE and take care of our members. Before I'm asked how many new members and how much it cost to do this let me answer....Does it really matter???? No, what matters is not in the numbers organized but that the unorganized are getting organized.....

Vivienne:

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

Which of your members voted to join SEIU?

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

Simple questions, simple answers.

Jumping Janice:

If you left UNITE HERE because leaders of the former-HERE are university grads who were not first rank-and-file members, why do you follow Alex Dagg and Bruce Raynor?

Alex Dagg: Queen's University Bachelor of Commerce in 1984, MIR degree from the U. of Toronto Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources in 1988.  Started with the union in 1985.

Bruce Raynor: Ivy League Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1972.  Started with the union in 1973.

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

Vivienne:

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

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

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

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

Vivienne:

Check your reading glasses.  I am asking you to show that your union is democratic.

Since I don't know the "technicalities" of the democratic process - after all, things like votes among the rank-and-file are just "technicalities," aren't they? - why don't you please enlighten the readers of this discussion?

We are all getting a bit suspicious: what is hiding behind all your talk of democracy?

When did the members vote?

When did they elect these delegates?

How many delegates from your workplace went to Philadelphia?

The list of unanswered questions grows longer.

 I wrote

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

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

From that you replied

Vivienne:

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

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

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

"stop raiding", "3to1" and all your user names:

who is the president of HERE Local 75? did union staff vote for him? who is the president of UNITE Local 2347? who is the president of HERE Local 2? did union staff vote for him? who is the president of any HERE Local across north america? who is the president of any UNITE Local across north america?

who votes in these elections?

answsers:

UNITE Locals are rank and file members elected by other rank file members in union leadership positions.

HERE Locals are union staff voting in other union staff.

i find it absolutely disgusting that Paul Clifford, a white, rich man, a yale graduate, who has never worked a day in his life can call himself the president of Local 75, a union dominated by Immigrant Women of Colour.

What does this white, rich man have in common with Immigrant Women of Colour? Has he faced racism? poverty? immigrating from another country? has he faced a union-busting hotel or boss? the answer is  NO.

How come HERE won't let its members run its own locals? Could they be because they are racist? sexist? they don't trust the members?

i find it disgusting that this so called president forces his staff to vote for him, or they get FIRED.

union staff voting in other union staff to hijack the union from the members is CORRUPT!

why is HERE bankrupt when they have more members? CORRUPTION?

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

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

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

Vivienne:

True enough! You've never yourself used the words "democratic or democracy." How telling!

And why would you use those words?

It's easier to say that "150,000 voted to leave Unite Here" than to say anything true, isn't it?

Is that WU's official position - that all 150,000 workers it claims to represent voted?

Round and round and round you go...

(By the way, the coffee question wasn't for you, but for Jumping Janice who claimed UNITE left UNITE HERE because former-HERE leaders allegedly drink Starbucks.  I asked you for factual information about your alleged membership votes for SEIU - and you refused to answer - several days before the coffee question.  Are seriously now saying you won't give us factual answers because the coffee question was "childish"?)

Jumping Janice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round, and round, and round...

3to1 Majority it still boils down to the fact my first explanation stands and you got the union democracy out of it....... The fact remains THE MERGER IS OVER......Worker's need representation, the unorganized need to be organized and HERE continuing to fight for assets that weren't their's in the first place are taking precidence over any and all other buisness involving members......That's the norm for them........The truth will come out when member's dues go to accounts and one side will remain broke......Till then we at Workers United will continue to represent our members and organize the unorganize what will HERE do except try and stop us and with that why try and stop us.....Shouldn't they be interested in doing the same as Worker's United getting on with representation and organizing????????????????

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

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

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

The Wilhelm faction suffered an embarrassing defeat today. That makes them 0-4 in the courts, but who's counting, right?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/No_injunction_in_UNITE_HERE_...

Jumping Jance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's all about the money. Wilhelm owned nothing but debt and doesn't want to leave empty handed...Instead of getting on with representation and organization he'd rather be in court fighting for properties that he didn't own prior to the merger.........

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

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

Vivienne and Jumping Janice:

Do you ever respond to substance with substance?

Why, in the face of actual, real court transcripts that contradict the official Raynor line, do you resort to talking points (Vivienne) and moronic, low-road, anti-union accusations (Jumping Janice)?

This disrespect is unacceptable, Brother.

I want to say this is a new low for the Stern-Raynor faction, but so many lows have been hit it's becoming difficult to keep track.

Here, a former UNITE HERE employee, currently loyal to Stern/Raynor, publicly betrays the campaign he was apparently working on in Dallas, claiming disingenuously that, "This was not what I signed up for". Oh really? You mean to tell me that this "Political Director", who was "personally involved in the project since its inception", did not know what was really going on... But now that he's become a tool of Andy Stern, he suddenly sees the error of his ways?

How does it feel for a "Political Director" to be the mouthpiece of a standard anti-union message? How does it feel to try to sabotage an effort to give taxpayers a say in the developments (often subsidized) that take place in their towns? How does it feel to set back a campaign to win card check at new hotels?

Shame on Stern/Raynor and shame on you, Farria.

Triciamarie:

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

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

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

3to1, I didn't notice that earlier. But, here you're deliberately repeating an outright personal insult. That doesn't improve the calibre of discussion you're complaining about, does it?

Triciamarie:

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

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

Have you seen Jumping Janice respond with any substance yet?

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

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

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

UNITE HERE Lawyer: "...they (the Raynor group) are saying to members 'come with us and we will bring you the property as well..."
 

Where does the Unite Here lawyer get his information from.....I nor my members were approached by Raynor nor did he ever at any time quote that to any of us at any meeting he attended.......Talking points seems to be facts as well......They entered the merger broke and don't want to leave it that way and that's a fact.....He spent 5 years in a merger and brought what or built up what during that 5 years..Nothing and in fact Paul Clifford President of HERE Local 75 decided the Merger didn't work April 1 2008....That's another FACT....If he were about MEMBERS wouldn't he take into consideration what and how long members of Unite and the Unions that were merged to form Unite, 3 mergers that DIDN'T FAIL by the way, worked to get what they brought into this merger.......Roles reversed and he would be screaming the other way.......It still boils down to the fact that MEMBERS need representation and the unorganized need to be organized......Once again that's what Workers United is doing and that's a FACT......

Vivienne:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERE Local 75 didn't want Niagara. One hotel owner was costing to much money for them to fight and win, which I might add being with Unite we have been winning with this owner,  Fort Erie Racetrack they figured was going to close, it hasn't yet, so THERE WASN'T ENOUGH MONEY FROM NIAGARA  for Local 75 to want us............We met with Alex Dagg and she had to reassure us that things would change. Otherwise NO WE WOULDN'T HAVE STAYED WITH LOCAL 75. We'd have displaced them as I said before. I tried to do it once but lacked any Union knowledge on how to do it but the Union I was talking to, and I APPROACHED the other Union, they didn't come looking for me, taught me what I needed to know......Yes we are now REPRESENTED BY THE UNITE SIDE something we lacked completely with HERE.AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE LACKED THAT WITH HERE.....WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECIEVING THE SAME TREATMENT FOR OUR DUES MONEY YET WE AND OTHER HERE UNITS WEREN'T ..We were HERE before the merger paying dues and getting no representation and no education. This is the reason I have more TRUST in the Unite side and that is why our members didn't hesitate to sign the petition and go with the Unite faction because we got more from them then we ever did from HERE...Once again I'll repeat myself on April 1st 2008 Paul Clifford President of Local 75 sent a letter which stated     "In view of our inability to agree on an equitable continuation of the Merger Agreement we hereby request Ontario Council to return to Local 75 a list of properties". We in Niagara weren't on that list WHY I must ask..........HERE Local 75 President decided in his view the merger was over. Proven at the meeting where once again I'll repeat myself, the chant was HERE.....Not Unite Here just HERE...............They decided the merger was over then    The only good thing to come out of the merger was that we ended up to be one of the lucky HERE Local 75 units that got to form our own local and be represented properly, but the fact remains HERE only wanted the money in this merger otherwise they wouldn't be fighting in court to keep assets. They'd be representing and organizing, by organizing they'll build their own bank account just as Unite and their previous unions did.....And did they do it right compared to HERE..................

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stern? Raynor? Wilhelm? Las Vegas? Real estate? Cult? Bank account? Attorneys? Assets? Court? Thieves? Corrupt? Bank? Insurance company?

Random words from a thread about workers and unions - allegedly.

It's too bad Canadian workers are totally incapable of running their own affairs. Thank God we have the U.S. to do it for us.

I feel sympathy for the workers caught between these rival businesses.

Unionist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge's Ruling Allows Members of Workers United to Hold on to Their Assets

April 9, 2009

NEW YORK- A hostile asset-grab was denied in court Tuesday when a federal judge foiled an attempt to seize assets from the union members of Workers United. Assets owned by the unions comprising Workers United were built with the dues money of generations of low-wage garment workers and were the subject of the preliminary injunction request filed by supporters of John Wilhelm, the President of the hospitality division of their former union, UNITE HERE.

Wilhelm is one of the defendants in the overall case, Gillis v Wilhelm who made the motion for the denied injunction. a His lawyers argued that when the unions of Workers United merged with his union to form UNITE HERE all of their property became the property of UNITE HERE. Judge George Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District challenged him saying:

"Well, that is not true. That's not true at all. There's a provision in there that says that the property they had before you merged is still their property." The judge continued, "but your positions ultimately, [is] if they [Workers United] don't want to be with us, then they should walk out the door and leave everything behind."

The verdict is a major win and a personal victory for the 40 Workers United members and retirees who attended the hearing and expressed joy at their ability to maintain their assets which include:

* Workers United unions' entire treasuries, built up through the contributions of low-wage garment workers over decades and in some cases over a hundred years;
* Workers United unions' buildings around the country; and
* stock in Amalgamated Bank - the nation's only union-owned bank, which was founded by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in 1923.

While the hostile leadership of the union that Workers United members left behind continues to threaten their assets in the ongoing court case, the denial of the injunction will enable the sacrifices of generations of garment workers to be honored for now. Workers United will be able to continue to serve members and organize workers who need a union.

____________________________________________________________

Workers United is a union representing more than 150,000 workers in the US and Canada who work in the laundry, food service, hospitality, gaming, apparel, textiles manufacturing and distribution industries. www.workersunitedunion.org

# # #

Jumping Janice:

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

Talking points or facts?

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

Firstly TW I don't lie. I was at the meeting to kick  off the roar of the lion campaigne the chant was H.E.R.E. You are right Paul Clifford didn't want to leave the IU BECASUE THEY NEEDED THE MONEY FROM THE IU.  That campaigne was to kick off the same day they were suppose to be at Ontario Council...Quebec, Manitoba and BC Council's voted 2 1/2 weeks before Wilhelm was in court in Washington to desolve Ontario Council BEFORE we had voted to disaffiliate. I ask you would you want to stay in a merger with a President that was in court trying to dissolve your Council.

As for bad contracts in Toronto, where UNITE HERE Local 75 has been dealing with frequent decertification attempts led by THEIR OWN MEMBERS in several hotels, six other unions have organized workers at 13 hotels in the GTA/Hamilton area. And standards achieved in those contracts are higher than those of Local 75 in many cases. For example:

• Under the UFCW contract at the Four Seasons, , members receive three weeks of vacation at three years' seniority, while it takes five years for members to earn as much under the UNITE HERE Local 75 contract at the Fairmont Royal York.
• Maintenance staff are paid $1.44 to $2.78 more per hour under the UFCW contract at the Four Seasons than workers in the same classification at the Royal York under the contract with Local 75.
• Servers at the Great Blue Heron Casino, represented by the CAW, earn $12.49 per hour compared to $9.97 per hour at the Royal York, or $5,241 more per year.

 We still have bad language that goes back to HERE Local 75. Yes we had UNEDUCATED members on our on our negotiating team.

At the end of the day, when the sun goes down, our members care about being represented properly, that our voices are heard and little by little they are seeing that.......

As for Jumping Janice knowing how to use the copy, paste function alot of people on here have used the copy and paste function.

Here's one from me.............http://www.workersunitedunion.org/content/statement-workers-united-executive-vice-president-lynne-fox-regarding-local-634%E2%80%99s-election-r

As for the SEIU affiliation isn't it better for worker's to affiliate then to decertify altogether????????????

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

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

Is everyone here familiar with the first triumph of "Workers United", the breakaway faction from UNITE HERE? "Overwhelming support from the community" won the fight, according to this press release. Too bad there was no support from the actual workers.

This sad attempt by ex-UNITE staffers led by Alex Dagg (now "Secretary Treasurer" of "Workers United") to step outside their industry and organize a hotel is typical of the difference between UNITE HERE, whose model is based on deep organizing and committee building, and the breakaway faction, which espouses the Stern/Raynor style of short-cut organizing, stunts and backroom deals - without even bothering to gain the support of the workers.

UNITE HERE, which actually enjoys experience organizing hotels, would not have gone public with a campaign until there was a strong committee able to withstand the Boss's inevitable assault, and an underground structure representing the majority of the workers. Instead, Alex Dagg's staffers opted for a glitzy, high-profile campaign that made a poster child out of the one single worker at that hotel who actually supported the union. A website was set up, thousands of dollars were spent on billboards, and celebrities were trotted out to "stand with Diane", and Diane was reinstated. Nevertheless the workers voted 35-1 against the union [86], but certification was won anyway through a combination of legal action and backroom dealing until the hotel agreed to recognize the union. And now we see the embarassing results. [87]

It's just another example of Stern/Raynor/Dagg "organizing". Lawyers, billboards, celebrities, backroom deals and one token supporter made into a poster child - what good is all of it if you leave out the actual workers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Mishak, "Has labor visionary crossed the line? Critics say SEIU leader is harming movement in quest for power." Las Vegas Sun, April 16, 2009.

Read the rest [90]

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

Read the rest [92]

Hello again, everyone!

I would like to bring your attention to Vivienne's latest screed, this time a 'Personal Story' from the American website Union Review .

The piece, titled 'President Wilhelm's Sub-Standard Union Contracts' attempts to argue that UNITE HERE's Hotel Workers Rising campaign bargains sub-standard collective agreements. By cherry-picking wages and contract language from a few other other unions' hotel agreements, Vivienne seeks to show that "thousands of UNITE HERE members work under lower contract standards than their peers at hotels organized by other unions." I encourage you all to read this important work by Vivienne (though I would wager my admittedly meagre life savings that she is not the real author!).

Here are some of my thoughts Vivienne's Personal Story:

Vivienne commits a common logical error when she comes to a general conclusion based a a few selectively chosen pieces of evidence. This is known as 'the problem of induction' to philosophy nerds and pedants everywhere.

Vivenne is ignoring the most important lesson of writing, which is 'write what you know.' In this case, Vivienne should write about her own experience at the Fort Erie Racetrack. As Vivienne frequently mentions, Fort Erie used to be represented and serviced by UNITE HERE Local 75 before that unit joined the Ontario Council of UNITE HERE (now Workers United). Interestingly, the last collective agreeement bargained with Local 75 back in 2004 is the last agreement at Fort Erie that included wage increases. Yes, that's right - the two most recent agreements bargained at Fort Erie by Alex Dagg's Ontario Council (a one year agreement and a two year agreement, by the way) included wage freezes.

Vivenne's article disingenuously includes a link to a searchable archive of collective agreements. I doubt most people would take the time to actually look, but just for the record, the contact for Fort Erie is not on the list.

Elsewhere on this site, Vivenne has claimed that scores of UNITE HERE members voted to join UNITE HERE. Based on the article from Labor Notes referenced by robbie_dee above, I'd like to question that claim. From the article, "The joint board held a disaffiliation vote in mid-April, attracting 75 votes from 2,400 cafeteria workers. James says the 61-14 result proves workers want out of UNITE HERE."

Let's do the math: 61 votes in favour of disaffiliation out of 2400 workers equals 2.5% in support of joining Workers United. This is the result referred to by Bruce Raynor as a "4 to 1" margin. Vivienne and her cohorts have never answered any questions concerning how many Ontario Council members actually voted to disaffiliate from UNITE HERE and join Workers United/SEIU. Looking at the farce in Philadelphia, I'm not surprised.

I would like to take the time to address any staff who might have recently left UNITE HERE to join Workers United/SEIU:

Is this really what you signed up for?

Do you feel like you're getting the full picture from your leaders?

Do you trust your leaders?

Do you think they are really working for the best interests of the members?

Is this really how you want to spend your time and effort - fighting a propaganda war and raiding already unionized shops?

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

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

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

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

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

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

TW says Vivenne is ignoring the most important lesson of writing, which is 'write what you know.' In this case, Vivienne should write about her own experience at the Fort Erie Racetrack. As Vivienne frequently mentions, Fort Erie used to be represented and serviced by UNITE HERE Local 75 before that unit joined the Ontario Council of UNITE HERE (now Workers United). Interestingly, the last collective agreeement bargained with Local 75 back in 2004 is the last agreement at Fort Erie that included wage increases. Yes, that's right - the two most recent agreements bargained at Fort Erie by Alex Dagg's Ontario Council (a one year agreement and a two year agreement, by the way) included wage freezes.

To correct you "As Vivienne frequently mentions, Fort Erie used to be represented and serviced by UNITE HERE Local 75. Beg to differ we were suppose to be REPRESENTED BY HERE Local 75......I've never been asked about our contract.....Yes we were locked out in 2004 for 13 days with promises of strike pay on the 14th day.....Our customer's as well as at least one other Union gave money only 1 member recieved $40. of that money the rest went to Local 75 and low and behold they settled our contract on the 13th day. We got 3% each year for 3 years.......While the company Nordic Gaming was taking in multi millions in slot revenue......We had a sentence removed that protected our top seniority people in case of a closure and lost probably half our customer's that never returned......We went from 26 full time dining room server's to 12 f t. We also lost f t positions in the kitchen and on the cocktail floor...So HERE got us a 3 year contract with a raise and lost how much in union dues from the members we lost after the lock out and wonderful 3% raise but alot less customers.... We as rank and file members who work the front lines did see an incredible decrease in buisness after the lock out, quite honestly I'd have rather kept our customer's. And while we were locked out another property had to have a MOCK STRIKE according to their and our rep Frank all the resources were being used in Fort Erie, ....Does anyone know what a mock strike is?????? That's an HERE Local 75 thing......Go ahead and call me a liar again and say I don't know what I'm talking about........Then came the merger. Our next contract was a 1 year with a wage freeze and that is what the company's lawyer wanted for the second contract 1 year wage freeze and roll over....We instead got a 2 year with a wage freeze but our benefits topped up......Are we suppose to be ashamed of this???????????????????????? And we still have a crappy HERE contract because no lauguage was changed.  As I said we are front line workers and we watched the decline in buisness.........The reason HERE Local 75 didn't want us back...........We watched the threat of the track closing with indefinite lay offs in December and the threat of it closing is still there if the purchase agreement falls through......So I  ask you just how much could HERE have got us??????????????????? No more then we got I do believe.

More to the point though is its funny you address the end of your post to Workers United staff. You're talking with me, a Workers United union member. The members are the union, not the staff. That was always a problem at HERE-- you guys think staff are the union

From: Bruce Raynor, UNITE HERE President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERE is a CULT!

HERE are bank robbers trying to rob UNITE members' bank - the bank founded by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

HERE is unable to organize workers, thats why 13 hotels in Toronto have been organized since 2004 by other unions.

HERE members decertified there union and joined the SteelWorkers at the Park Hyatt, and the Sheraton Gateway in Toronto. 

It was pretty amazing to find out that the Sheraton Gateway workers decertified at the kickoff of the failed 2006 hotel workers rising campaign.

Jumping Janice:

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

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

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

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

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

Vivienne:

Why don't we fill in the gaps in the story of Fort Erie Racetrack negotiations?

Back in the HERE Local 75 negotiations, did your co-workers not, in fact, provoke a lockout through militant workplace action?

Didn't your co-workers engage in a one-day strike after which the bosses said: "Do it again and we will lock you out"?

Didn't your co-workers take another one-day job action despite the bosses' threats?

Then, after HERE Local 75 fought through a 13-day lockout resulting in a win of 3% raises, you have decided to blame the lockout for a drop in business lasting many years?

Isn't that the bosses' famous anti-union trick? "We lost business because the union fought us too hard."

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

Did HERE Local 75 ever stop fighting because "that is what the company's lawyer wanted"?

Are you next going to tell us all that the CAW and auto workers wages are to blame for the Big Three car companies' current troubles?

Not even your Nordic Gaming bosses are publicly blaming labour militancy for a drop in business.  See www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1346993 [100] and www.citynews.ca/news/news_30160.aspx [101].

Are you really claiming that the HERE-led strike/lockout action killed the business?

Don't you find it strange that your blind rage at HERE causes you to take a more anti-union line than your multi-millionaire casino bosses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the Review article......The company couldn't come out and blame the UNION'S for the lay off's or decline in buisness because we took wage freezes wouldn't have looked to good to blame us....Once again you've jumped ahead 8 years.....Alot more has happened through 8 years and the last couple of years the economy took a complete nose dive.....

Next you say

Don't you find it strange that your blind rage at HERE causes you to take a more anti-union line than your multi-millionaire casino bosses? I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then answer this question.     Why when the union wanted a signature on their petition was nothing said about the workers union or the SEIU, just that they wanted to separate from HERE. 

I was there under HERE  (nothing was ever done)  I was there when the merger happened (again nothing was done to benefit the trackside workers)  You say IF THEY COME TO YOU   they have and still nothing was done, (Why because it was a trackside employee).  You tout this new union as a win win for all.  Right now there is no faith in any union at the track as they are not looking out for all the employees equally and fairly.  Not when granting "Super Senority" to an employee who has worked the one year and related to R.V. So you can see that you have a lot of work to prove that this union is for ALL employees fairly and equally and not just some hidden agenda that a select few on the casino side have going. 

Vivienne:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEIU's interference is absolutely shameful and should be condemned by the labour movement on both sides of the border, including those within SEIU, that see Stern's action as destructive to the labour movement and antithetical to the fundamental principles of trade unionism.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/unite-here-local-11-members-overcome-seius-attempt-to-derail-vote,798475.shtml

Who's next on the Stern offensive?  

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

Example of internal dissent within SEIU.

Vivienne:

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

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

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

Hey Vivienne, Willow, Jumping Janice et al,

Still think you're fighting for 'local union democracy?'

Check out this article about the financial shenanigans Stern and Raynor have been engaged in.

Any thoughts?

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

This article appeared today in a San Frasisco-based alternative on-line journal...

UNITE HERE Fends Off Attacks, Puts SEIU on Defensive

Beyond Chron

Randy Shaw‚ May. 04‚ 2009

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

Vivienne, Willow and Jumping Janice:

We have not heard from any of you in so long: has Andy Stern's SEIU public relations machine put a muzzle on you?

Did they think you were not quite "on message"?

Can any other readers imagine how it would feel to be silenced by Andy Stern?

How is that for union democracy?

By the way, what do you think about Randy Shaw's view (posting #101) that your so-called leader "Raynor is now irrelevant" now that Workers Divided has been swallowed whole by Andy Stern?

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

Nice to see someone is still organizing the unorganized.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/631904

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRONG!

Southwestern PA is not on board with you!

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

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

At the Local Office...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACTUALLY PEOPLE THIS NOT A "RAID!"

BUT ....

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

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

...."RAPE!" Yes RAPE!

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

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

WE ARE PROUD UNION MEMBERS OF UNITE HERE!

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

WE ARE STAYING UNITE HERE!!!