Ray Marshall Issues Report on SEIU Trusteeship of UHW

by Paul Garver

As the Hearing Officer appointed by Pres. Andy Stern to hear the case for SEIU’s trusteeship, former Labor Secretary Ray Marshall issued on 21 January a Report (download) that concluded:

There are natural differences between local and international unions, especially over matters of local union autonomy. If these differences can be resolved through democratic means, they contribute to the vitality of local and international unions. Indeed, local union democracy is a major source of international unions’ organizing, bargaining, and political strength.

But democracy also is important in internal international union affairs. Democratic processes require that once decisions are made, all members of the union agree to accept those decisions, and to continue to work within international union processes to change policies they disagree with. However, no democratic labor organization can permit local unions to nullify international decisions reached through the democratic processes specified in their Constitution and Bylaws.

The UHW-SEIU conflict is hurting both organizations at a critical time in the development of the labor movement and progressive policies in the country. The main beneficiaries of this conflict are anti-union employers and politicians who have geared up to use this conflict against our efforts to pass legislation to help workers, especially the Employee Free Choice Act. Anti-union employers gain when unions and union members are divided. The principal losers, besides the combatants themselves, are underpaid and underrepresented workers who are denied the benefits of collective bargaining because resources are wasted in internal conflicts and costly litigation.

The coming months and years should provide great opportunities for strong unions like the UHW and the SEIU. I therefore hope you can settle your differences and prepare your organizations to take advantage of what I hope and think will be a period of great opportunity.

Based on his judgment that the jurisdictional conflict over the organizational structure for long term care workers in California was the underlying issue between SEIU and UHW, Marshall then recommended that trusteeship not be imposed on the issues that were before the hearing, but that it could be imposed if the UHW leaders do not accept the amalgamation of its long-term care members with those of Local 7434 and Local 521 into a single statewide local.

SEIU’s International Executive Board (IEB) unanimously resolved to accept this recommendation.

The UHW issued a formal statement that welcomed the recommendation not to impose an immediate trusteeship, but contended that Marshall had exceeded his authority by citing the previous IEB decision around long-term care that was not the subject of the hearing. “By structuring the decision in the way he does, Marshall appears to allow his report to become a bludgeon to force UHW members into accepting a wrong-headed, undemocratic decision by Andy Stern and the IEB to divide rather than unite California’s healthcare workers.”

My Commentary:

Ray Marshall may have exceeded his formal authority as a hearing officer, but nonetheless his motivation is of the best. As his conclusion cited above demonstrates, he is appalled by the prospect of an escalating internal war between SEIU and UHW. Both sides appeal to the highest principles of democracy and commitment to the needs of workers, while accusing the other of cynical manipulation and lust for power. There will be no victors in such a war — only the carrion birds of the union busters and right-wing politicians. Certainly the collateral victims will include the 250,000 unionized long-term health care workers of California.

I have often stated my respect and admiration for the achievements of the UHW-W and the fashion in which its members have mobilized in defense of their local union. To this distant observor (but one with a history in SEIU), it looks like the kind of union we have always been striving for — militant, impassioned, politically sophisticated, and a multi-cultural rainbow. I have no doubt that, if a trusteeship were imposed on UHW-W, an occupying army of SEIU staffers from outside would face fierce opposition. It is quite likely that whatever survives would be altered and diminished. And the two million SEIU members nationally would be represented by an organization bearing the stigmata borne by all imperial powers, no matter how noble their stated intentions.

On the other hand, I have also argued that SEIU’s leaders and International Executive Board should assume their own adult responsibilities, and act prudently by seeking negotiations rather than using force to settle internal conflicts. Harsh though Marshall’s recommendations and the IEB decision endorsing them sound to the UHW-W and its supporters, they leave some space open to further explore the remaining chances for avoiding Armageddon. It becomes hard to argue that the IEB is not taking its responsibilities seriously, especially since there were several votes against or abstaining on the long-term care jurisdiction issue.

I would like to explore a conceivable road map that further develops Marshall’s conclusions and recommendations. The underlying hypothesis is that even an imperfect peace is preferable to the most glorious war. This especially applies to civil wars and fratricide, always the most vicious and longest enduring conflicts.

1. My first thought is that provocative actions, gestures and violent rhetoric have to be avoided on all sides. For instance, I cannot imagine that UHW-W members could make a rational decision while plainclothes security officers are surveilling their offices. Reports of hundreds of SEIU staffers ready to descend on California pose the kind of menace that infuriates rather than intimidates real trade unionists. Whereas a small number of SEIU officers with experience in long-term care organizing do make sense and should be welcomed to California (Remember the orphaned members of the trusteed Local 7434!)

On the other hand, when the UHW-W refers to SEIU leaders as “cronies” of Andy Stern and call the IEB’s decisions “wrong-headed and undemocratic”, it closes off avenues for seeking solutions. Its use of the phrase “kangaroo court” to characterize the hearings conducted by Ray Marshall is another provocation. Read the hundred pages of his report that precede his conclusions and recommendations. Whether or not you agree with them, you will be impressed by his characterizations of the cases presented by both SEIU and UHW.

2. If Marshall is correct that the underlying issue is union jurisdiction over long-term care workers in California (and what is the “democratic” way to decide it), then we must examine under what conditions the UHW-W membership could conceivably acquiesce in the IEB’s jurisdictional decision. Admittedly they are under the gun of an ultimatum of one week, which to my mind is too short for deliberation and makes the possibility rather remote. But let’s imagine what COULD happen.

One of the strongest arguments against amalgamation is that 65,000 UHW-W members would be transferred into a top-down undemocratic structure led by an undesignated appointee of Andy Stern (and probably an incompetent crook to boot). The record of previous major SEIU California appointments like Tyrone Freeman and Annelle Grajeda is hardly reassuring.

But is it so certain that would be the inevitable outcome? And what of the interests of the larger numbers of long-term care members from trusteed local 7434? Would it really make sense for SEIU to parachute in a bunch of outsiders, when UHW-W already has competent staff and stewards in the sector? Are SEIU top officers Eliseo Medina (assigned to oversee the implementation of the restructuring of the California long-term care sector) and Gerry Hudson (head of the SEIU long-term care division) really incapable of working together with transferred members of UHW-W to create something new and positive? No changes can be made in jurisdiction before 12 February, and in any event there should be no reason why negotiations on the implementation of the jurisdiction decision could not be extended beyond that date.

Could not those discussions include the creation of a democratic and representational structure for the amalgamated union and a timetable for free and speedy elections (not like the rigged elections for Local 7434 or the lack of choice on the “advisory membership referendum”)?

A successful and democratic long term care union would have to look very much like UHW-W, and not like some clumsy bureaucratic caricature. It could not be administered by satraps responsible only to Washington. Isn’t more important for Andy Stern and SEIU’s national leadership that SEIU has vibrant and functional California locals rather than sullen resentful subjects?

If 65,000 current members of UHW could be transferred into a viable long-term care local under properly negotiated and implemented conditions, it would not represent a defeat for UHW-W, but rather an extension of the principles it proclaims. Isn’t this more important than preserving the specific delineation UHW currently has (which has existed only for a few short years).

Doesn’t it make sense to accept Ray Marshall’s final challenge for UHW and SEIU to “work together to build a strong union, to organize the unorganized, and to accomplish other shared goals?” If the will exists, ways will be found.

OK, I’m a crazy optimist, and likely to be doomed to disappointment. As in all such conflicts, the mutual grievances and frustrations are so ready to explode that the first few days of actual warfare might be welcomed as liberation and as a relief on all sides. The hangover comes later. Maybe I’m just getting old (though not so experienced and sage as Ray Marshall). But there is still time to begin to get over brooding on past injustices and focus on building a common future within SEIU.

President Obama has called upon us to “put away childish things” (leadership squabbles over who is the bigger bulldog?) and to become, at long last, adults. “Yes, we can!”