> [The quote from the exec kinda seals it for me: "They were doing
> exactly the kind of things we were trying to avoid. They poisoned the
> well to the degree that we didn't have the conditions that we tried
> to establish for a pressure-free environment." Ah yes, unions are
> supposed to provide a "pressure-free environment."]
The "pressure-free environment" simply applies to the voting period. Management in hospitals constantly complains that union elections as previously practiced are disruptive to business, the business in the case being providing patient care. The election agreement in this instance is designed to placate management's fears by severely limiting worker contact by either the union or management until workers get the chance to vote. The union agreed to this because we believe that free from boss intimidation a majority of workers want a union and will vote accordingly in a secret ballot election.
Also, did you miss this part of the article:
"Responding to Ms. DeMoro's assertion that the union had entered a sweetheart deal in which it would bargain halfheartedly, Mr. Regan noted that after unionizing 550 nurses at a Catholic Healthcare hospital in Lorain, Ohio, the service employees staged two contentious strikes in an effort to obtain a contract."?
Additionally, if you're still in contact Idelson, you might want to ask him for copies of CNA lit they distributed in 2003 condemning the election agreement ("back room deal") SEIU reached with Tenet Healthcare. I'm thinking particularly here of a glossy mailer with a picture of two hands shaking. Being ideologically flexible, later that year the CNA did an about face (this time without all the press releases and public fanfare) and signed a similar agreement with Tenet. As I mentioned in a previous post, they just filed for an election in a Tenet Houston hospital under a renegotiated successor election agreement with the company (you might ask for a copy of that too while you're at it).
There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that had the CNA the wherewithal to run a successful corporate social responsibility campaign with CHP, they would have signed the same exact election agreement that SEIU did. Their history with SEIU and Tenet (and CHW before that) demonstrates this. What they portray as a principled action (i.e. telling workers to vote no in a union election) is nothing more than craven organizational opportunism.
It's frustrating that some are persuaded by their lies and hypocrisy. Not nearly as frustrating, however, as the fact that 8,000+ CHP workers won't be able to have a free and fair union election anytime soon.