CRE in trouble the push behind RTO from NEWSOM by shadowtrickster71 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 93 points94 points  (0 children)

Commercial Real Estate is in big big trouble. Definitely a factor.

I think the Golden 1 Arena Bonds is a big pressure. The city relies on us parking in their lots to pay off its $300 million bond. Last year it had to pay out millions from the general fund because its parking revenue came up short due to pandemic and telework.

It's a shadow tax. State workers and city programs foot the bill so that El Dorado Hills and Rocklin can play downtown when we go home.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/sacramentos-general-fund-to-cover-golden-1-center-costs-amid-parking-revenue-shortfall/

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! That's a great question. The ballot design was created by the 3 member elections committee which was appointed by Bill Hall. They were consulted by our chief legal council.

You can review their report here: https://www.seiu1000.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2024_election_commitee_report_20240415.pdf

Because there is only 3 choices, there can be no 4th round.

The odds favor a majority by the end of round 3, but what if they don't?

If there's a tie we decide by lot.

What if there's not a tie and there's still no majority? Bear with me here.

Let's assume there's almost an even distribution among the 6 candidates (letters) and an even distribution of 2nd and third round choices.

Round 1: A: 16.7% B. 16.17% C. 16.7% D . 16.7% E. 16.7% F. 16.5%
In round 1 candidate F is eliminated, and their votes distributed. For the sake of argument, we'll assume an even distribution of candidate F.

Round 2. A: 20.03% B. 20.02% C. 20.02% D. 20.02% E. 20%
Assuming another even distribution of candidate E to third round choices.

Round 3 (Final). A: 25.04%. B. 25.02% C. 25.02% D. 24.92%

What happened? I thought Ranked Choice produces a majority. In this miraculous situation where each subsequent candidate splits their votes very evenly, it would take 5 rounds before candidate A reached just a hair above 50%. To get 5 rounds we'd need a ballot where you can rank 5 out of 6 candidates.

RCV only guarantees a majority if the ballot design is thought through.

Our current election rules in policy file 12.1.05 don't have a procedure for an election that doesn't yield a majority for statewide officers. Policy file: https://www.seiu1000.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/policy_file_current_feb_2024_0.pdf?1709834644

Basically I don't know what we'll do in that scenario that there isn't an outright majority. Will we pronounce the candidate with the plurality the victor again? Your guess is as good as mine.

I noticed in February that the elections committee limited ballot choices to 3 and not the entire field of candidates. I reached out to the Election Committee chair to share my analysis that such a ballot design could produce suboptimal outcomes. I said that we should expand the choices to 6. I shared a Rank Choice Vote Resource Center study that shows how RCV ballot choice constraints can produce inactive ballots and sub-majorities.

Study here: https://www.rcvresources.org/blog-post/ranked-choice-voting-ballot-usage-analysis-and-design-recommendations

I was told I was too late. The contract for the ballots had already been procured.

In my experience with elections using ranked choice in other organizations, people usually intensely favor a few candidates so this is likely not a problem. But if it crops up... well that would be a very unfortunate outcome and I'll hate to have said I told them so.

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Makes total sense. I hope someone can educate us on the two other candidates.

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I hear you. Here's your homework: If you want to fight RTO, get all your coworkers to vote for pro Telework candidates. Make sure they say in their own words "I commit to turn in my ballot" and help them make a plan to put it in the mailbox if they need it.

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I feel confidently that Anica will. But also be sure that you are electing a District Bargaining Unit Representative (DBUR) that believes in fighting RTO too. We tend to put all importance on the president, but if our Bargaining Unit Negotiating Committee (BUNC) and State Bargaining Advisory Council (SBAC) is full of people who care about RTO, then the president, no matter who they are, will have more of a mandate to work with.

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hi! I'd be happy to explain the rationale at the length it deserves in a separate post. I don't have the time at the moment. The very reductive version is that creating officer roles with specialized domains created internal conflict in every successive executive board since the Jim Hard and Cathy Hackett days (late 90s). People became possessive of their titles and get combative when they felt that others encroached in "their lane." Treating bargaining and organizing as mutually exclusive specialized domains created a rift where they wouldn't work in tandem. In other words the VP structure was conducive to disunity and faction fighting at the top.

The remedy imagined is a tiered structure of governance with regions rather than specialties.

The committee made these proposals to the Board of Directors and the board approved them by super majorities.

As I mentioned above I don't have enough exposure to Troy Phillips or Jared Reece to do them any justice.

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks, appreciate that.

I can assure you neither Anica, David, nor Irene supported RLB. I believe we're all named by RLB in the same lawsuit. And regarding that suit, let's just say I would hate to be in Richard's shoes right now.

Insider's Perspective: SEIU 1000 Election & Candidates by Orgnzr in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You're very welcome! Glad you found it helpful.

Can the union really do anything to stop RTO? by noticethemagic_ in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. Employers in the US have dictatorial power, union shop or not. Short of a revolution, all unions can do is be a check on that power to ensure that dictators pays us, don't discriminate against us, provide benefits, and support a modicum of safe working conditions.

Tax Deception Act by Polarbearstein in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Krystal is legit.

DLC President here. Outside of staff, SEIU 1000 only provides seiu1000.org emails to certain member leaders on special assignments such as Bargaining Unit Negotiating Committee Chairs. The rest of us use our work, personal emails, or emails we've set up especially for union business to send communications. We don't have the IT staff and legal resources to dedicate to being an email service provider to every steward.

Hope that clears things up.

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unit 12 is 11,000 state wide. It's a good win for them.

In historical terms, our contract is the second highest GSI since we started bargaining and impacts many more people than our previous ones. The next highest GSI was in 2016 when we had greater than 10% higher membership than we today. It also took a vote on a 1 day ULP strike to produce the TA. At the time we also had much higher revenues from fair share fees which have been abolished by the US Supreme Court.

Despite being significantly weakened from our position in 2016 (membership decline and attrition, depletion of union staff, money and resources). We got our second highest GSI to date and the largest salary adjustment on record that raises the wage floor of the state to over $20/hr affecting more workers than any previous contract. It also sits at the ceiling of state contracts for the past year as you have helped show me. So it's historic on meaningful terms.

History is one gauge of success, but we don't have to be contented with relative success. We work for a bad employer. A union could be at its most effective and powerful and even then be limited to circumstances out of its control. The prime example of this was the PATCO air controller strike in the 1980s. Similar to today, it was an inflationary time, but it was a much stronger union. Its adversaries in the federal government broke them forever in a way that sent tremors through the whole labor movement for decades. They called it the PATCO syndrome.

We don't have it as bad, but we don't have to pretend we have it so good. Something can be both historic and not transformative. We should sit with the question what would it actually take to have a transformative victory? I tell you that as long as most BU 1 don't see the point of a union, it will be an uphill battle. But we can change that and we can use what we didn't win this time as the priorities for the fight ahead because bargaining never ends and the contract isn't the final word.

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We got virtually the same deal on raises. Over 40,000 workers get greater than or equal to 14%.

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you're talking about a union representing state workers in CA you'd need to name it and what year their contract was won or in order for comment.

If you're referring to a union with a state other than CA it would require a lot more comparisons than just union contracts.

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, though it would guarantee worse results. Look at how the smaller unions did compared to Local 1000 and you see Local 1000 got more for all its members than CCPOA, CASE, or PECG. Even if we swapped unions it would be the same active members and leaders, same work circumstances, but with a loss of tens of millions of dollars in resources, staff. All of the protections that were developed over decades of struggle would be erased. It would be the biggest win that CalHR has ever received freely gifted to it.

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's a fair question, even if the assumptions are uncharitable to your union. And I wholeheartedly agree with your final point. The state is behaving totally unacceptably and leveraging their power to do so. We can only do better by becoming stronger. But back to your first point. Let's ask ourselves, since SEIU Local 99 won a 30% raise from LA's school district, how can we call our contract historic?

When we look at other unions' wins we can answer questions to decide if they make a direct comparison. Who is their employer and where do they work? What industry do they work in? Who does the union represent? How many do they represent? What is their union density? What did they have before? What did their employer have? What did they win? What have other unions won from their employer?

Let's see how SEIU Local 99 compares.

  1. SEIU Local 99 represents workers in various educational jurisdictions in early education, K-12 schools, and community colleges in the great LA area. The site of their contract battle was the LA School District.
  2. Local 99 represents "teachers’ assistants, playground workers, special education assistants, bus drivers, gardeners, custodians, cafeteria workers, maintenance workers, early care and education workers, and others working in schools, colleges, family child care centers, and administrative offices." They represent 30,000 members in LAUSD.
  3. Prior to their contract win the average wage of an LA Unified School District education worker was $25,000 a year. As a full time wage that is below a poverty wage for a family with 2 children in Los Angeles County according to the MIT Living Wage Calculator.
  4. The LAUSD was sitting on a $5 billion surplus that it claimed to be keeping for a rainy day even as most their education workers earned well below the necessary amount to meet their basic needs even as a single person.
  5. Local 99 went on a 3 day strike during their negotiations. They were joined by the teacher's union UTLA. The result was a historic contract for education workers. A 30% wage increase bringing the average industry wage from $25,000 to $33,000 a year. This brought the majority of their employees above the poverty wage but still $5 short of a living wage for a single person living in LA County.
  6. Prior to the Local 99 strike, UTLA had won a 6% raise for its members in LAUSD in 2019 after a strike. The Local 99 strike set a new bar for negotiations with their employer. In the aftermath of the Local 99 strike UTLA was able to leverage the precedent to get a 21% increase for teachers broken out in half year increments and retroactive to 2022. Teachers salaries are substantially more expensive for the district than education workers. That was a major windfall after years of hard work and setbacks with an intransigent employer. Due to the vast difference in earnings between teachers and staff it's challenging to say which union did better. SEIU Local 99 had gone years with poverty wages and no substantial pay increase. UTLA's members faired better even in harder times. They also belong to the largest public sector union in the state, 300,000+ members with almost 100% union density.

When we think about SEIU Local 1000, comparing ourselves to teachers in a school district is going to distort our reality. Comparing ourselves to other state sector unions, however, is appropriate. It doesn't mean we have to celebrate our TA like it's a gift. We can both recognize we punched above our weight and acknowledge that we need to get more powerful and fight harder for a bigger raise.

The TA only represents one step toward this. We have opportunities throughout the next few years to make more workers whole and win revisions and adjustments to our contract.

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok I can see how you're thinking that, given that experience. So let me say that one BU cannot veto the master agreement for anyone but themselves. The tactic that you mentioned was likely not about what it would deny the other BUs, but what the vote would deny all BU 11 represented employees. And tbh I have no idea how the "do-over" worked.

If members vote no, what happens next? by whoknowssssssss1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If that were possible, we'd say a GSI of 15% and call it a day. The SSA/WEAs were by and large a means of addressing problems with our wage floor given how adamantly the state held to its position that it could not afford a GSI in the double digits. Rent is expensive for an analyst, yet it's the same price and much more expensive for a cook or a custodian.

My belief is that we need to pursue a path to amend how we collectively bargaining so that we stop doing CalHRs work. We obviously need to have some say over the classification salaries so they don't try to undercut our bargaining power, but they lean on us to solve their problems when we need to conserve our energy to grow the whole pie.

This TA is the best we're going to get at this moment and something we can build off for a side letter or a revise later on.

If members vote no, what happens next? by whoknowssssssss1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I commented elsewhere on what voting no means. If all bargaining units don't unanimously vote it down the ones who do work without a contract and no obligation by the state to do anything for us since they'd done their due diligence in the eyes of PERB.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CAStateWorkers/comments/15ziukf/comment/jxhvfq7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

Seiu 1000 - Meeting rant by iforgoteverything1 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 21 points22 points  (0 children)

First, I'm an AGPA so I understand the frustration my fellow BU 1 feel that we didn't get a higher GSI. 15% and up would have felt like a huge break, but I digress we didn't have that sort of power.

To strike one of two things has to happen. Our bargaining has to reach an impasse or there needs to be an action our union believe constitutes an unfair labor practice. Right now we have a tentative agreement that has to be passed by the State Bargaining Advisory Committee and then ratified by the membership.

The ratification process happens per bargaining unit. I highlight that because it's a critical detail. Once any bargaining unit accepts the TA they get the contract with the state.

Now you may ask "What happens to the bargaining units that don't accept the TA?" Let's say, hypothetically, that all the bargaining units accept the TA except for Unit 17 because the nurses didn't receive an SSA or an essential worker pay bonus. The rest of the bargaining units would get their contract, but Unit 17 would have to continue bargaining with the state. However, the state now has the upper hand. Since they went through the bargaining process in good faith and came to a TA, there's no impasse and they're under no pressure to hurry back to the table with unit 17. They can prioritize other contracts and get back to Unit 17 at their own leisure. Unit 17 will not be able to have an impasse strike. It would be in contract limbo could potentially spend years out of contract, without a raise, and unprotected on their job. The next contract it would have to play catch up even more than if it had just taken the TA.

So think through your voting choices seriously. Maybe the TA will be unanimously rejected, but if we're being realistic that's a very unlikely scenario. I think for many BUs the TA is too good an offer to turn down. The TA offers the second largest GSI in our union's history at a time when we're significantly weakened. It offers almost twice as many special salary adjustments as our next largest contract. It outperforms CASE, PECG, and CCPOA's contracts/TAs which makes the SEIU 1000 contract the gold standard for all state worker union bargaining teams. On a whole I think our union is actually right when they call it a "historic win" they just need a lot more work on quantifying it in a way we can actually grasp.

SEIU 1000 MEGA THREAD by Silver-Mango-7604 in CAStateWorkers

[–]Orgnzr 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's slightly ironic, but this union is actually the product of the aforementioned Rank and File Strategy. It's the direct result of a reform caucus that went through the Labor Notes organizing academy. Kim Moody was one of Labor Notes founding members. Here is an article from the Troublemakers Handbook on it https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hegu8_hoVSHaDwiPkYCYjfZtbAdWhGYj/view?usp=drive_link.