|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Backroom deals by US service unions strip workers of rights
SEIU/UNITE HERE assume role of labor contractors
By Shannon Jones
19 May 2008
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The recently disclosed secret deal between the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) in partnership with UNITE HERE and
two large employer groups exposes the reality behind the much-touted
organizing success of Andrew Stern, leader of the 1.8-million-member
service union.
In exchange for a noninterference agreement at selected work
locations, the two unions gave up the right to strike, to criticize
management or to conduct informational picketing at work sites.
The unions also surrendered the right to conduct organizing activity
at work locations not specifically pre-approved by management.
The two employers involved, Sodexho and the Compass Group USA,
provide contract workers to clients such as hospitals and universities.
The agreement with the unions stipulated the number of workers
at each company and the specific worksites that could be organized.
An agreement with a third employer, Aramark, is being renegotiated.
The existence of the sweetheart deal came to light in an article
published in the May 10 edition of the Wall Street Journal.
The piece reported that, since 2005, when the SEIU and Unite
Here created a partnership to represent workers that provide food,
laundry and housekeeping service on an outsourced basis, they
have organized about 15,000 workers at Aramark, Compass and Sodexho,
which collectively employ more than 300,000 people in North America.
The Journal report is based on internal union documents.
A summary report notes: Local unions are not free to engage
in organizing activities at any Compass or Sodexho locations unless
the sites have been designated. It advises that all information
regarding union-employer collusion be kept secret from workers,
saying it is important that we honor the confidentiality
and not publicly disclose the existence of these agreements.
The SEIU led a breakaway from the AFL-CIO in 2005 after precipitating
a bitter and unprincipled organizational dispute. Seven unionsSEIU,
UNITE HERE, United Food and Commercial Workers, carpenters, laborers
and Teamstersformed the Change to Win Coalition, promising
a new dynamic approach to organizing. However, this has nothing
to do with defending or improving conditions, but involves colluding
with employers to impose union membership on low-paid workers,
who are denied the right to vote on union certification and in
some case dont even realize they are joining a union.
The exposure of the attempt by the SEIU to set itself up as
a kind of labor contractor has come to light in the midst of a
bitter factional battle within the SEIU. One of Sterns internal
opponents, Sal Rosselli, who heads a large SEIU local in California,
has recently criticized Stern for practices similar to those outlined
in the Wall Street Journal article. He and fellow local
officers are currently facing a drive by Stern and the national
SEIU leadership to put their unit under trusteeship.
Rosselli came into conflict with Stern over renewal of a secret
pact the SEIU set up in 2003 with a group of California nursing
home chains. The deal swapped a noninterference agreement for
a pledge by the SEIU to support higher state funding for their
operations and an employer-sponsored tort reform law
that would limit patients rights to sue for negligence.
The SEIU also agreed to oppose any legislation on staffing levels
that did not meet employer approval.
A report in the April 11, 2007, issue of the San Francisco
Weekly based on internal union documents, exposed how the
SEIU agreements with nursing home operators essentially codified
an employer dictatorship. It explained that under the 2003 pact,
workers entering the union would fall under template agreements.
These stipulated that nursing home staff would be barred from
reporting health and safety violations to regulators, public officials
or the news media except where obliged to by law because of their
egregious nature.
Further, the SEIU agreed that workers would have no input regarding
hours, vacations, pay, layoffs, staffing levels or any other matter
concerning their jobs. The article continued, The employers
may outsource work performed by union members, and speed up, reassign,
or eliminate jobs at will. The employer may eliminate vacations,
or any time off, as the employer sees fit.
The agreement also guarantees that workers wages
will not put an employer at an economic disadvantage,
either through employee pay, benefits, or through staff-per-patient
rations.
In other words, under the terms imposed by the SEIU, workers
had far fewer rights than if they had no union. As one blogger
noted, by pushing these kinds of deals, the union has become little
more than a dues collection agency much like a Mafia Protection
Operation.
The SEIU went on to use this arrangement as a model for organizing
workers in Washington state and New Jersey. It also copied much
of this model in its agreement with Compass and Sodexho.
The thoroughly undemocratic methods being employed by SEIU/UNITE
HERE are not an isolated case. According to a report in the April
23 issue of the New Republic titled Loves Labor
Lost, other unions in the Change to win Coalition such as
the UFCW and Teamsters are copying these tactics, noting, Sterns
ideas have a wider laboratory than ever before.
The United Auto Workers (UAW) negotiated a secret sweetheart
agreement promising an inferior contract in exchange for employer
non-interference at a Freightliner plant in Cleveland, North Carolina,
in 2003. When the local leadership carried out a strike against
the concessions contained in the deal, five officials were fired
with the full support of the UAW.
The opponents of Stern within the SEIU do not disagree in principle
with the policy of union-management collaboration, they merely
favor it be carried out in a less naked and obvious manner. For
example, Rosselli supported the initial sweetheart pact with California
nursing home operators, only raising objections when confronted
with widespread anger among his membership.
It is indicative of the moribund state of the trade unions
that some of the harshest criticisms of these methods, which amount
to little more than company unionism, come from the pages of the
Wall Street Journal.
These kind of secret union-employer deals point to the continued
and deepening corporatist degeneration of the unions. The policies
of the trade unions based on nationalism and unbridled labor-management
collaboration are leading to outright company unionism. As the
above cited examples indicate, the labor bureaucracy is assuming
more and more the role of labor contractors, winning the right
to extract dues from workers in exchange for serving as enforcers
of labor discipline over a low-wage workforce stripped of elementary
rights.
See Also:
Andrew Sterns
Getting America Back on Track: More right-wing proposals
from the American labor bureaucracy
[12 February 2007]
The split in the AFL-CIO
and the organization of the unorganized
[28 July 2005]
A falling out within
the US labor bureaucracy: Service workers, Teamsters split from
AFL-CIO
[26 July 2005]
The split in the AFL-CIO
[12 July 2005]
Marxism and the
trade unions
By David North
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |