> [I forwarded Mark Rickling's recent comments to the CNA press person, Chuck
> Idelson, who responds...]
You bother to forward to Idelson the CNA's flyer condemning the SEIU/Tenet deal -- which CNA later signed -- as a "backroom," "sweetheart" deal for comment? If so, what was his response?
> some responses:
> 1- on the ratio law.
CNA charges in its OH CHP flyer that SEIU would not oppose CHP's plans to replace LPNs with RNs. As far as I know, CNA has made this up out of whole cloth. What evidence does Idelson have of CHP's plans? Whatever CNA's interpretation is of the CA ratio legislation story -- which is wrong -- it makes no sense in OH. Absurd.
> 2- the argument that SEIU has the best RN contracts in the nation is far
> from true.
In areas with density, one can drive standards. This is basic unionism 101. CA has a bunch of density, so does NY. Our contracts in those two states are as good or better than the CNA contracts. Our contracts outside of those two states are better than the CNA's contracts not in CA.
> 3- contracts with ratios. here's the difference ours have real enforcement
> language to assure compliance with the ratios, theirs do not
CA has density. CNA contracts outside of CA don't have any ratios (assuming the raided Cook County unit doesn't have them -- if they do, they were with the INA when that was won). SEIU contracts outside of CA do have ratio language, which is far better than nothing, and contrary to what Idelson asserts, there are of course methods to enforce what's written in the CBA.
> 4- Ohio. do you really think it is a good precedent to have employers
> petitioning for elections without a single signed union card?
CNA didn't think it was a good idea to have any election agreement with the boss. Until they did. Idelson, is your Tenet agreement (and CHW agreement) a sweetheart deal or not? If not, why prior to 2004 did you slander SEIU with this charge,? Until you address this question, CNA charges of company unionism are so much hypocritical hot air.
> 5- disempowering workers in organizing
Only an asinine sectarian can believe CHP workers -- and CHP patients -- are better off with no union than SEIU. This key point bears repeating: only an asinine sectarian can believe CHP workers -- and CHP patients -- are better off with no union than SEIU.
> 6- with all their whining about "raiding", it's a common practice for SEIU.
So if SEIU does it (allegedly!), it's ok for CNA to do it too? Shouldn't progressives, given the current state of labor, condemn all raiding? Or CNA gets a pass because they support Nader? Remember, the CNA too is a sellout, sweetheart company union too due to their Tenet deal.
It's no surprise CNA has no problem with raiding other union's units and intervening at the last minute in other union's organizing campaigns. CNA can't grow without this "strategy." They simply can't or won't organize successfully on their own. But any progressive who thinks the labor movement needs to grow should have a huge problem with this point of view. The CNA should pour more of its money into AZ, where it heretofore has been spectacularly unsuccessful organizing new members. Maybe if they didn't waste resources in raiding and unionbusting, they would have won in AZ by now?
And after all that has been said and done, I can honestly say I wish the CNA would have been successful in new organizing in that state. Because I'm not an asinine sectarian, I know those workers -- and their patients -- would be better off with the CNA than with no union. And maybe if the CNA had some success in growth outside of raiding and intervening at the last minute in other unions, they wouldn't engage in such supremely counterproductive behavior.
It's sad and not just a little bit pathetic that I have to keep repeating this basic point here -- unions shouldn't waste their valuable resources raiding each other and unionbusting other unions' organizing drives.