SEIU/UHW-West member's perspective

by: Lisa_Tomasian

Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:25


Hi, my name is Lisa Tomasian and I am a Radiology Technologist at Kaiser Hospital in Santa Clara, California, and a 17-year member of United Healthcare Workers. I¹ve seen the discussion here and on other blogs about the dispute going on within SEIU, and it seems a lot of the jargon and talk about internal union mechanisms is obscuring the day-to-day reality of what this dispute is really about. So I¹m hopeful that sharing my perspective and experience will help bring this discussion back to a useful place.
Lisa_Tomasian :: SEIU/UHW-West member's perspective
This issue is basically a dispute about what a union is. For me and my co-workers, a union is a means by which working people can build our power and strength. Simple as that. That power and strength comes from our organization on the ground level, and from working together to accomplish our goals at our workplaces - for those of us who still have workplaces in today's economy. Our strength does not come from the members having the same ideology, or from sending our dues to union headquarters. It comes from real-life involvement through taking action.

I'm a steward at Kaiser Hospital, which means my co-workers have elected me to represent them in disputes with our employer, to make sure our employment contract is upheld, and to play a leadership role in other union activities. All of this happens at the ground level: I still work at the hospital, I¹m not paid anything extra by the union, and my co-workers know who I am and how to get in touch with me.

For me, rank-and-file leadership is not a theoretical issue, it was the central factor in correcting an ongoing pay equity problem at Kaiser.  When I started as a Radiology Tech, women were often pigeon holed in the mammography department.  Important work, I know, but unlike other modalities we didn't receive a pay differential that acknowledged the additional licensing and training that position required.  After years of agitating and educating and finally activating representatives from mammography departments in all of Kaiser's Northern California facilities, we won equal recognition for our skills from Kaiser - and equal pay for our work too.  Today I'm proud of the fact that there is equality for women in this field.

The reason this matters is that it goes to the heart of the direction SEIU is moving, and why we in UHW are trying to change it. What I just described is a situation where workers resolve their own issues, using the union as a tool to empower ourselves. What we object to is an ongoing series of actions by SEIU to consolidate power in the D.C. headquarters and reduce our strength at the work site. More and more, arrangements between this union and employers are being made at the top levels of SEIU¹s administration, and the actual members are treated like afterthoughts, if at all.

To take just one example, SEIU has proposed creating a system of "member resource centers" in the near future. These centers would be staffed 24/7, so that members of the union can receive "professional and responsive representation" on our issues. That sounds to me like a member hotline.  Which is better than nothing, I guess, except that I don't see the union as an organization that I joined in order to access a call center. I see the union as a movement of working people who stand up for themselves, seeking things like living wages, political strength, and social justice.

I'm sure that SEIU will claim their call centers are really intended to help streamline administrative tasks so that stewards like me can focus on the real issues. That would be easier to believe, except that every move made by SEIU in recent years has been geared toward consolidating power away from members. Local unions have been merged without fair votes. Leadership development programs have been eliminated. Members have been kicked out of their own contract negotiation meetings.

All of these moves had a rationale behind them- expediency, usually, or the belief that union staff will make a better deal than selfish members. But what do you give up when you make that trade-off? For those of us who have been empowered through taking action at the ground level, it's questionable when we're told that building the "labor movement of the future" requires less member leadership and more centralized authority. Our ability to lead workers in a movement for social justice decreases to the same extent that our power at our workplace is stripped away.

I know this all looks like a pointless waste of time and resources, especially since both sides in the argument want the same thing:  to build a stronger and better labor movement.
But the way that movement is built is just so important. When I've helped non-union workers organize their union, I've always told them that forming a union is a way for them to empower themselves. But if we don't change SEIU's direction, that might not still be true in the near future.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Fascinating struggle! (0.00 / 0)
Hi Lisa!

I am not qualified to comment on your dispute with the national organization, as I am not privy to the details other than the broad strokes you present.  Notwithstanding, I found your presentation compelling, in that it directly speaks to my line of work (I am an association executive).  

There is indeed a creative tension between the larger body of any organization and its local chapters, and frequently those managing the larger body forget that the local bodies don't necessarily have the same interests.  For instance - for a collective bargaining agreement to hold teeth, the larger organization has to promise that the local bodies will fall in line - but that could mean totally upending gains local bodies made on their own.

Some asked me a while ago why I'm not "leftist" - this tension is one of my pet peeves - I don't find "big labor" to be much better than "big business."  It seems that we are at a juncture where a new organizing principle needs to be found - one that leverages the talents and energies of groups like yours, where grassroots organizing can make a local difference, and where the larger organization receives its information from that direction, rather than pushing down from the top.  

Well - that is, of course, a lopsided opinion.  I'm a management level professional serving the non-profit sector - and I do know how operations considerations lend toward centralizing up at the top.  That said, successful nonprofit management generally fights tooth and nail to ensure that the base of the organization has a strong, and robust voice in the policy making, and operational structure of the organization.  Not sure if that's helpful at all, but I hope it is at least a word of encouragement.

QT


Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




Based on my past experience (0.00 / 0)
and keeping in mind that I haven't heard the other side here on any specifics, I would agree with you that weakening the steward system is a bad idea in general.  While bureaucracies have their place, unions need to provide a way for their members to get active.  The steward system is a good way for that to occur.  Why do you think they want to weaken it?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.





USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS