What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Controversy

Major debate going on in the Labor movement, here's one view...

By now you may feel like you've heard quite enough of the back-and-forth between SEIU and the CNA over union representation of nurses and healthcare workers in Ohio. You may have also heard that the dispute runs deep and wide and goes back years and across state lines into Nevada, California, Texas and several others, and that the encounters have become more extreme.

And perhaps you're wondering--why should I care?

If this were just about CNA and SEIU, or even just about a dispute at an isolated hospital in one state, you could move on. The thing is, these struggles are not taking place in a vacuum--and what becomes of them has far-reaching impact that touches us all. At a time when the economy is bad and getting worse, and the number of workers represented by a union in this country is an anemic 12%, labor unions face a choice...and workers everywhere face the consequences.

Unions can fight for turf within the ever-shrinking pool of unionized workers, or we can get back on the offensive by reaching out to help more workers join unions to strengthen the hand of more working families.

SEIU has been at the forefront of unions doing exactly this since 1996. And the results speak for themselves.  Since 1996, more than 1 million new members have united to join SEIU.  Today SEIU represents 1.9 million workers. These new members range from child care workers to city employees in nonunion right to work states like Texas and Arizona to, significantly, hospital workers.

By contrast, CNA, harking back to old-school craft unionism, has pursued an elitist agenda that not only excludes hospital workers who aren't registered nurses, it prevents registered nurses who want to join a union other than CNA from doing so simply because it's not the CNA.

Six days before union elections at nine hospitals in Ohio--one with unprecedented ground rules that resulted from three-plus years of hard work by hospital workers, their community allies, and SEIU to hammer out fair election guidelines with the state's largest health care system--CNA dropped into the state. CAN organizers ran a fiercely anti-union campaign encouraging workers to "vote no." Their tactics so poisoned the environment that the elections were cancelled. I won't go into detail here--it's all detailed in this timeline: http://www.shameoncna.com/include/timeli ne.asp.

By disrupting this process, CNA sent an unmistakable message to the hospital industry: if a hospital agrees to a fair organizing process, it will be subjected to outlandish accusations of "company unionism" and "backroom deals."

The CNA's actions in Ohio represent a major setback in the labor movement's efforts to raise the standard of employer conduct in organizing campaigns. And it's not the first time CAN has used such divisive tactics to poach members from an existing union or otherwise divide workers who are in the process of forming a union. It's happening in California, Nevada, Texas, and elsewhere.

But why might it matter to you? It should if you (you being a working person, a progressive, a consumer in the American economy, or all 3) because this approach undermines the future of the labor movement. At this time of historic inequality and utter insecurity in the American economy, workers need more than ever the strength in community that comes from being organized at work.

In the healthcare sector alone, there are nine million workers out there who don't have a union. As boomers age, our healthcare needs grow, and the industry's identity crisis drags on, healthcare workers united in unions have a crucial role to play.

The same is true for the other industries that employ hundreds of millions of American workers--88% of whom don't have a voice on the job.

But our ability as workers, progressives, and consumers to sit at the big kids' table depends on our ability to grow and our ability to work together. On a national scale, we're living the reality of what happens when a smaller and smaller percentage of workers stand together: corporations get to have a bigger and bigger say in the way things work and who gets what.

But at SEIU, we're living the reality of what happens when workers--with tremendous courage and at great odds--stand together for the interests of all working people: lives, neighborhoods, cities, and whole industries are transformed for the better.

Experience has taught us the hard lesson that circling the wagons simply doesn't work. And our progressive sensibilities--our concern for the common good--confirm it.

This struggle matters because it's not just about CNA or SEIU, or Rose Ann DeMoro or Andy Stern. It's about the future direction and vitality of the American labor movement--a movement that has the ability to blaze a path to an economy and a society that works for everyone--not just the lucky 12%...or 11...or 10...or 9%...

--posted by Nadia, also an SEIU staffer, writing along with Michelle Ringuette.

Tags: CNA, Labor, SEIU, Unions (all tags)

Comments

31 Comments

The interests of registered nurses

aren't the same as the interests of the non-licensed hospital workers and I can well understand why they are not eager to affiliate with SEIU or others.

Nursing has been trying for decades to establish its bona fides as a profession.  Nurses are legally responsible for the work that others perform under their supervision; they are required to maintain continuing education to keep their licenses, and they have an established educational ladder leading all the way to the PhD.  

Why isn't the SEIU content to organize the hospital workers who aren't RNs?  There are plenty of workers who need representation in hospitals and even more in nursing homes.

I used to be a CNA member, but quit when they endorsed Ralph Nader 2000.  

by Radiowalla 2008-04-12 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Cont

Thanks, Nadia, for posting earlier.  And good questions, Radiowalla.  I think there are legitimate disagreements about the best ways to organize hospitals (as I am sure you know, it isn't easy).  

SEIU Healthcare believes that it is best to be a truly national healthcare union, and that when hospital workers and nurses are united, it gives them a stronger voice on the job.  And with that voice, workers can win better deals, support one another and deliver the best care to their patients.

On a more personal note - I think nurses are amazing and the work that they (you) do is only beginning to be recognized for the critical role it plays in an individuals health, recovery times, etc.  Thank you.

-Michelle, SEIU

by mringuette 2008-04-12 05:08PM | 0 recs
"truly national healthcare union"

If you are aiming to form a "truly national healthcare union," then it would follow that you are also working to represent physicians and pharmacists?  Hospitals can't function without them, any less than they can function without professional registered nurses.

by Radiowalla 2008-04-13 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: "truly national healthcare union"

I don't know about SEIU's opinion, but adding physicians and pharmacists to the mix sounds great to me!  The professional vs. plebes "association"/union divide is problematic as it divides those with more power against those with less.

And doctors could seriously use a union given the hours they're expected to work.

I'm feeling an old CIO ditty about "one big union" coming on...

by ahkiam 2008-04-13 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: "truly national healthcare union"

If you feel one old CIO ditty about 'one big union' coming on, why did Andy Stern rip the one big union apart?

We all need union representation. We all can work together. The unions do it at my hospital. But our unions must understand our distinct needs and obligations and fight for them. SIEU has a poor record of doing that for nurses and patients.

by Ludlow 2008-04-27 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Cont

This is what you posted:

SEIU Healthcare believes that it is best to be a truly national healthcare union, and that when hospital workers and nurses are united, it gives them a stronger voice on the job.  And with that voice, workers can win better deals, support one another and deliver the best care to their patients.

I am not sure how that winnows out.  If you suppress 'whistle blower' protections, how does that translate to having a stronger voice.

I am really strongly pro-union.  However, I believe nurses should have the union that represents their voices and concerns.  Having one national health care union may NOT be the right way to go if that Union is so big and powerful that it does not have to respond to the individual nurse's voices and concerns.

by moonheart 2008-04-13 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Cont

Calling SEIU a "company union" is ridiculous.

There are two longstanding beefs people have with SEIU - one is that there's an impression that they favor organizing hispanic workers over African Americans; the other is that Andy Stern tends to wipe out the leadership of unions that the SEIU merges with, and replaces it with people loyal to him.  Last month I had lunch with John Kalin of AFSTRA, and the former head of a union (who will remain nameless) who now has no position whatsoever because they had merged with SEIU.

Anyway I'm just giving some background here; I'm not really up on the politics of the CNA so I can't really weigh in.  The growth of SEIU speaks volumes about their effectiveness, IMO.

by Mostly 2008-04-13 01:37AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Cont

Poor Clinton...she can't seem to get more than 43% of Democrats to support her.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106432/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Leads-Clinton-49-42.aspx

by comingawakening 2008-04-13 05:50AM | 0 recs
Poor Obama

43% of his supporters are spammers.

by Radiowalla 2008-04-13 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Cont

Level of maturity?

by usedmeat 2008-04-13 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Cont

Troll-rated for thread spamming.

by juliewolf 2008-04-13 08:36AM | 0 recs
by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-13 06:19AM | 0 recs
See this diary re the same subject.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/13/8471 9/8216

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-13 06:57AM | 0 recs
Labor Notes Conference disruption

Labor Notes is one if not the respected voice of the progressive labor community.  Over the years, LN has taken many union bosses to task in it's promotion of union democracy.  Along the way, LN has sounded the alarm to the labor community about boycotts and strikes and stood strong for overcoming the obstacles to greater union participation and growth.  It's hallmark publication "The Troublemakers Handbook" has been the primer for street activists for decades.  

Labor Notes has many times supported and spread the word on SEIU drives, strikes and boycotts and published supportive articles on SEIU initiatives.  And many times they have drawn the ire of bosses within other unions, unafraid of the UAW, the Teamsters and anyone else who needed their feet held to the fire for union democracy.

SEIU disrupted the Labor Notes Conference, a well-planned and significant bi-annual event dedicated to better understanding and cooperation between union and the sharing of critical information, with no concern for how their activities would effect the greater labor movement.  Striking UAW members at Detroit Axle, being shoved by GM into a 50% pay cut, should have been the focus of Solidarity coming out the the 2008 LN Conference.  Instead?  SEIU, in a concerted effort, brought violence and tragedy to a peaceful progressive event.

Instead of SEIU leaders taking the stage to debate Moro or challenge her on the tactics of the CNA, they chose instead to bully, disrupt and offend the progressive labor community.

All progressives should hold them accountable for this choice.  Andy Stern needs to denounce these tactics and fire the organizers of this disgraceful tragic display.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-13 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Labor Notes Conference disruption

Thank you for your knowledgeable information.  I think this is what a progressive blog should be all about.  Trying to get out the information on what's going on around our country.  Thanks so much.

by moonheart 2008-04-13 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Labor Notes Conference disruption

With all the back and forth about the protest at the Labor Notes conference, it's time to set the record straight.

Here are the facts:

*           Most of the SEIU members who traveled to Dearborn to express their disapproval of the CNA's tactics were women. They were primarily home care workers, nursing assistants, and other caregivers. Some brought their children with them.

*           They had gathered at the conference hoping to voice their disapproval of the CNA's anti-union campaign in Ohio that stripped more than 8,000 hospital workers of the opportunity to freely choose whether to form a union with SEIU.  

*           Despite efforts to prevent the health care workers from making their voices heard, the rally was a peaceful one. Protestors talked to individual conference attendees about what happened in Ohio. They chanted "union busting is disgusting."

*           At no time did they engage in or witness the kind of activities described by the CNA.

--posted by Nadia, Michelle's colleague, SEIU staffer

by mringuette 2008-04-14 11:34AM | 0 recs
Not what I heard

Interesting but that's not what I heard.  I heard from attendees, not associated with CNA, that the majority of the 500 SEIU rally attendees were paid SEIU staff and while the demonstration outside remained peaceful, a smaller contingent, led by male staff, entered the hotel.
I have no idea why Labor Notes would want to conflate or lie about this. http://labornotes.org/node/1604

Beyond the violence, I'm hard pressed to understand why SEIU turned down invitations to debate the issues in a peaceful public forum at the conference, and instead chose to disrupt an event dedicated to furthering the labor movement and the thoughtful exchange of progressive ideas.  

It makes no sense to me.  
   

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-14 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Not what I heard

Sorry to be so blunt, but that is total BS. Where do you think SEIU would have found 500 staff? Or even 250 for that matter...

Those were members, many of who had ridden on a bus for four hours for the chance to protest the union busting tactics of the CNA.

Labor notes has even updated their story late today to make it slightly more factually accurate. But it's really just a demonstration of how ridiculous their version of the tale is.

As for an "event furthering the labor movement"...Labor Notes lost that title once they asked a union buster like Rose Ann DeMoro to be their key note speaker.

Union busting needs to be called out, whether at a chamber of commerce dinner or at a supposedly progressive conference.

by Nate1212 2008-04-14 07:39PM | 0 recs
I'm seriously confused

In my reading of the events in Ohio, the employer cancelled the election.  So doesn't that mean the employer broke the agreement and the employer "busted" the union movement?

It's not like the election took place and SEIU lost or like CNA got itself on the ballot and split the vote.  the vote never took place because the employer pulled out of the deal.  Or perhaps I'm mistaken about that.

I also don't understand how SEIU could have organized for three or four years down there and CNA could have undid all that work in a week.  And why, if the employer pulled out, doesn't SEIU just file for a standard NLRB election now?  Surely if those 8000 nurses want representation from SEIU they can win that vote, no?

If CNA is spreading lies down there about SEIU, can't SEIU just combat those lies with the truth?  If those nurses matter, can't SEIU send more organizers down there to talk to them and get cards signed?

Truly, I just don't understand any of this, how exactly CNA "busted" this union.  It seems like if they busted anything, they busted the agreement with SEIU and the employer, who apparently didn't enter into that agreement in good faith anyway.  What assurance did SEIU have that the employer wouldn't break the agreement and intimidate those nurses without them knowing?  Is it possible the employer was just looking for any reason to back out?

Regardless, I still don't understand how any of that justifies disrupting a labor conference, I don't care who the speaker was.  Wouldn't it have made more sense to take the invitation to debate the CNA in front of an audience of their peers?  Why resort to what happened?  the conference was open to SEIU members and many were in attendance.

The other labor people in attendance did nothing to harm SEIU and paid over $100 for the chance to network and learn.  Did they deserve to have the conference they paid to attend so disrupted?

I'm just guessing on this, but if SEIU locals are anything like the locals I'm familiar with it wouldn't be all that hard to mobilize 250 staffers and their families from a few states, especially given the size of SEIU.

I'm just trying to make sense out of this all because of the deep regard I have for the work of LAbor Notes.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-14 10:29PM | 0 recs
I just found a great link -- worth the read

At least it helped me to understand what happened at the conference a little better.  Seems unbiased and pretty "blow by blow".  (pardon the pun)

http://machete408.wordpress.com/2008/04/ 14/the-purple-bureacracy-thugs-it-up-at- labor-notes-conference/

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-14 10:57PM | 0 recs
SEIU is the last union to complain about poaching

Most of SEIU's growth over the last decade has been from poaching off of other Unions. As a worker who has been a "dues unit" for SEIU for the better part of three decades I find their complaints ironic.  Ask the workers at CSEA how responsive their union is to their concerns. Andy Stern is championed as a "labor leader", he is nothing but an empire building hack.

by surfk9 2008-04-13 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: SEIU is the last union to complain about poach

"Most" of SEIU's growth?  Really?  So there wasn't a Justice for Janitors campaign or the security guards campaign or the home healthcare workers organizing?  I call bs.

SEIU does flip resource investment from the traditional 10 union service reps to 1 organizer, to 10 organizers and 1 rep.  The idea is that the union's biggest 'service' is to have sufficient market share to negotiate a good contract.

But it's true, they're less good about having someone available to explain how your heath care benefits work.  It sucks that you feel you're part of a "dues unit," but have you tried to get involved in the workplace committee or the contract negotiation committee?  If there's masses of disaffected at your workplace/local it should be easy to get elected...

by ahkiam 2008-04-13 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: SEIU is the last union to complain about poach

I have been a steward, area steward and a contract negotiator for an SEIU local. I have put my blood sweat and tears into representing my brothers and sisters in my local. I have seen first-hand how SEIU operates. Once they have taken over a local, any independent voices are quashed, dues are jacked up and the money goes out of the local into SEIU.

All of this "Market Share" bullshit is MBA speak to try and hustle the yokels.  So spare me.  Organizing is done on the ground through local action and other actual forms of representation. SEUI is a political entity paid for out of the dues of its members.

by surfk9 2008-04-13 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU

My biggest concern is that SEIU is making it a practice (at least that is the information I have seen) to make a deal with the employers not the employees.  This is not a situation that will allow the workers involvement to grow.  If your company gives you a union as a fait acompli, and you were never asked your opinion on the matter, how is that to the advantage of the worker.  From what I understand, the reason SEIU is able to make this type of deal with the owners of nursing homes and healthcare facilities is because in exchange they are lobbying to take away 'whistle blower' protections.  I think there are other reasons, and I am apologizing in advance, I don't have time to look up some of the things I have read previously.  That is not in the best interest of Nurses, their patients and their families.  Why that would be an advantage to other types of health care workers, I don't know.  I have to study up on this some more.  I am in NY, and just reporting what I have been reading.  Any California Nurses out there, can you shed some light on this, whether you are a member of CNA or not?

by moonheart 2008-04-13 08:26AM | 0 recs
You are right

In a deal with a California nursing home chain, a ban on members whistle blowing on patient care was part of the bargain.  Typically these agreements also ban strikes and other forms of protest by members, rendering the members themselves disempowered and dependent solely on union bargaining power.  Members are also essentially shut out of the bargaining process because the terms of the agreement are settled in advance, ahead of any widespread member involvement.  
The union may also "partner" with the employer, as happened in California, to promote legislation that serves the employer or shut down legislation that advocates for the patients.  

Of particular interest to me, the only positive spin story on the violence at the Labor Notes conference yesterday came from FOXBusiness.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/seiu- members-stand-future-labor-movement-inte rests-workers_559320_1.html

Andy should be so proud.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-13 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You are right

The ban on member whistle blowing is messed up, but the "ban" on strikes is actually just a standard agreement organizing unions strike in order to get the company to agree to give up union busting tactics.  It takes a lot of pressure to get companies to play nice, "no-strike" clauses are throwing them a bone.  Plus, if the company is really not hindering the organizing, would you need to strike?

This process is only undemocratic if you push the right-wing frame that that unions are an external entity cutting deals with the company in order to swoop in and continue the exploitation of the virginal workers.  In reality, the organizing committee for a workplace will be made up of workers from that same workplace.  They are the ones pushing for and accepting these sort of "nobust-nostrike" deals.

by ahkiam 2008-04-13 10:08AM | 0 recs
Wow, This is so important to understand

Thanks so much for explaining what's going on.  I am really leary of a Union that is making deals with the bosses, not the members.  It's like unions are being coopted by the owners of companies.  Andy Stern may be happy because this is giving him more power, and the business owners are happier because by keeping Andy Stern in power, they are able to exercise their power better.  BUT the real losers are the people that are the workers.  Why isn't there more of a stink going on.  I am so limited in the time that I have to devote to what's going on and now I feel like I am missing something very important.  

AND why isn't there more of a stink on this site about the Administrators using an SEIU ad to make CNa look bad.  I am really pissed off by this.  

by moonheart 2008-04-13 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake
What I'm seeing in this thread, and it's underscored by the troll spammer, is the widespread inability of progressives/liberals to think tactically.  We're great at strategy, wide-ranging ideas about what we should fix and what we should oppose, but when it comes to getting things done, we have no patience for small victories.  We want big, shocking changes and we want everything put right yesterday.  And if we ever do achieve a victory, we're done, world saved, have a nice life.  
SEIU is my union, and they've made a tactical decision to mostly ignore me while they try to make some allies for me.  As long as I'm making nearly twice what I did when I worked the same job as a temp, I'm ok with being ignored, even when payroll screws my W2s and I have to file an emergency extension on my taxes(doin' that now).  Because I understand that I can't have everything all at once, but what I do have in Andy Stern is a mythical beast--a progressive(and therefore strategically capable) mind with tactical judgment.  
by Endymion 2008-04-13 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake

I'm not sure how to reply to this.  My problem is not whatever Andy Stern is doing to strengthen unions, but where his unionizing tactics are seguing into Patient health and safety.  I will apologize in advance because I am a nurse and I tend to view things as a nurse.  If the California Nurse's Association says his unionizing tactics are creating an unsafe situation for patients, the patients come first in my book.  If that means progressives are their own worst enemies, well so be it.  We all have our views, and nowhere does it say that Andy Stern's way is the only way.  I also most strenuously object to SEIU's use of intimidation and threats of violence.  Imagine a nurse trying to lobby for better work conditions and better pt. safety and all of a sudden SEIU is sending goons to their house to intimidate their spouses, moms and dads or their Children?  How scummy is that.  So your so reasonable post doesn't really cut it with me.

by moonheart 2008-04-13 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake

By the way please peruse my diary about the shameoncna.com ads being tacked onto all mydd diaries at http://www.mydd.com/user/moonheart

My objection was the tacit support that MYDD was making by tacking on that very objectionable ad to every diary.

Also, when you can check out this other diary on the same subject:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/13/1511 2/7290

by moonheart 2008-04-13 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: What's Really at Stake
For starters, I don't know how to reply to this, lol.  But I'm pretty sure that the ads are assigned based on a computer keyword search, so any page containing 'union' gets a union ad, and so on.  Which is actually a practice I also object to, I'd like all the campaign folks to have to see labor issues, and all the labor folks to get net neutrality and so on.  
As an SEIU caterer and a contributor to SEIU-Committee on Political Education whose sister is training to be a nurse, this issue is of considerable interest to me.  I admit to a bias in favor of my union, and that combines with the fact that I can't find any corroborating news reports for the CNA & LN press releases to make me doubt.  I'm not saying SEIU didn't bus in a bunch of warm bodies, they do that sort of thing, and I probably helped pay for the buses somehow; what I'm saying is I think the only reports on the disturbance exaggerate to make the author's side look good.  Any SEIU report would certainly present a completely different account.  In short, PR is just rumors.  
For a look at what happens when a company is partially unionized, see Verizon+CWA.  Stern's position is that having separate Unions in the same facility would lead to the exact same problems as having only a partial union, because of the natural inequality that situation engenders.  If CNA wants to pull the rug out from under him, all they have to do is organize the rest of the workers at the facilities where they operate.  That would require a change of mission, but(and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough) the tactics AND the strategies of union organizing in the last quarter of the last century failed utterly and continue to fail where they are still practiced.  
by Endymion 2008-04-13 06:38PM | 0 recs

Login

 

Sign-in-with-twitter-lighter

Advertise Blogads