Worker: "SEIU Said They'd Fight for Us... But They Didn't Even Throw a Punch"

In California, SEIU is making more headlines as a result of another stunningly pathetic performance at the bargaining table. 

Last week, the leaders of SEIU Local 1000, which represents 95,000 state employees, signed a tentative agreement with California officials for a three-year labor contract.

Here’s some background.

Local 1000’s members haven’t had a pay increase since 2007. In fact, the local’s leaders have bargained only three raises since 2001. Meanwhile, SEIU has accepted contract language that forces workers to contribute more of their wages to their pensions. And in the recent difficult years of the recession, workers got hit with furloughs that cut workers’ take-home pay by between 5%-14%.

This year, however, the state's coffers are overflowing with tax revenues. A recent article in the New York Times put it this way: “California Faces a New Quandary, Too Much Money.” On Friday, California’s legislature approved an annual budget that’ll produce a surplus estimated at somewhere between $1.2 billion to $4.4 billion. 

So… this should be a perfect opportunity for SEIU to finally win some justice for its members, right? Plus, the Democratic Party controls both houses of the state legislature and the governor’s office.

Did SEIU actually win something for its members?

Here’s how one SEIU member put it to the Sacramento Bee:

The SEIU agreement left state worker Ernie Medina disappointed, especially in light of [SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne] Walker's tough talk.

"She said she would fight for us," said Medina, "but I don't see where she even threw a punch."

Under SEIU’s deal, workers will get another year of wage freezes during the first year of the contract; a 2 percent increase on July 1, 2014 if – and only if -- the state “achieves certain revenue targets;” and a 2.5 percent raise in 2015.

Observers are especially stunned by SEIU’s willingness to tie its members’ future wage increase to mysterious budget “triggers” that are entirely controlled by the Boss. According to the Sacramento Bee:

It remains unclear exactly how the fiscal triggers in the new contract work.

Here’s what the state’s H.R. Department told the newspaper:

"Revenues have to be consistent with meeting the state's obligations" for the 2014 raise to take effect, said Pat McConahay, spokeswoman for [Gov. Jerry] Brown's Department of Human Resources. "And that's determined by the Department of Finance."

Sounds like workers will be getting a wage freeze in 2014. 

So what’s SEIU saying about the so-called “triggers” that it negotiated?

The union's announcement, meanwhile, didn't explain what factors would trigger the earlier raise. The local didn't respond to The Bee's texts and messages requesting comment.

Meanwhile, the head of another union of state employees says that in the past, state negotiators proposed this sort of arrangement to the unions, but none of the unions actually ever accepted the idea of tying their wage increases to “triggers:”

Bruce Blanning, the longtime executive director of the state engineers' union, said he has seen state labor proposals contingent on certain economic factors in the past, but that they weren't put into contracts.

"They were too difficult to measure," Blanning said.

Way to go, SEIU!

SEIU Officials Eye Dave's Pay Raise

Tasty hears that the fat cats at SEIU are jealously watching as Dave Regan stuffs fistfulls of workers’ dues money into his pockets. So... they're scheming up plans to get a piece of Regan’s lucrative pay action.

In September, top officials at SEIU Local 1000 – which represents California government workers – introduced a proposal to triple the pay of the union’s president, Yvonne Walker. Apparently, SEIU officials somehow forgot that thousands of the union’s rank-and-file members are getting hammered by wage freezes, furloughs, and possible pay cuts amidst a giant state budget deficit.

Now… Tasty ain’t no genius, but even Tasty’s slobbering half-brained dog coulda figured out it’s not real smart to triple the union president’s paycheck while workers and their families are getting slammed by pay freezes and furloughs.

After the Sacramento Bee got ahold of SEIU’s proposal, the news quickly spread through the union’s membership. In one letter, members pointed out how the pay hike would undermine democracy inside the union:

 …there are probably no classifications represented by our union that pay $150,000 a year and few, if any that get to $125,000. The currently proposed pay scale for the officers, $125,000 to $150,000 would put them in a significantly higher income stratum than vast majority of Local 1000 members. From a political perspective that would put them as individuals in the position of being able to finance an entire election campaign on their own. Whereas over the last twenty years candidates have had to organize networks of members to raise money and volunteer help to win elections. That would not be good for our member-led union.

Good point!  So… if $150K undermines union democracy, then what does Regan’s $300,000 a year mean for the future of SEIU-UHW?  Not a pretty picture, my friends.

Back at Local 1000, the outrage over the presidential pay hike ultimately forced SEIU to back down. Tasty hears that SEIU officials started getting real nervous when workers began clamoring for more petitions to decertify SEIU. Meanwhile, it looks like SEIU is simply waiting for things to quiet down before they push the purple pay hikes once again. In one news article, SEIU quietly announced it “would continue to study the issue.”