UNITE HERE dissidents to join SEIU

 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.

I don't need to check my reading glasses.....I explained the process without the numbers......I answered the HERE,UNITE, SEIU questions about who is democratic to my knowledge......I also answered the question about which union is a CULT..... I will not get into the childish question, "what kind of coffee does she drink".......I won't get into the numbers with you because of the childish questions you tend to throw out there. Here's the broad facts 150,000 voted to leave Unite Here. 450 delegates went to the convention in Philadelphia. That's something you can get off the internet where you got Alex Dagg's info from.....

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

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

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

Jumping Janice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round, and round, and round...

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

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

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

Jumping Jance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3to1majority wrote:

moronic, low-road, anti-union accusations (Jumping Janice)

This disrespect is unacceptable, Brother.

Triciamarie:

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

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

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

Triciamarie:

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

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

Have you seen Jumping Janice respond with any substance yet?

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

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

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

Vivienne:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unionist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jumping Janice:

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

Talking points or facts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Bruce Raynor, UNITE HERE President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jumping Janice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivienne:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's next on the Stern offensive?  

"Local 54 pickets union it says is trying to steal members"

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

Vivienne:

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

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

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

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

Excerpt from the letter signed by Stern and Raynor:
"We are also prepared to unilaterally take four very important steps to demonstrate the sincerity of our position. Obviously, we would expect UNITE HERE to do the same.

4. Employer relations. We are agreeing not to disrupt any existing employer relationships as it relates to existing contracts, contract negotiations and dues deduction in all undisputed jurisdictions."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/UNITE_HERE_talks_collapse.html