Next to Andy Stern’s imminent departure, the next biggest SEIU story is the California court case. From an initial claim of $28 million in damages, the SEIU was awarded $1.5 million (according to SEIU – NUHW claims the levy was only $737,850). Of the 28 originally named defendants in the suit, 2 were dropped before trial, and no judgment was made against another 12. The remainder were asked to reimburse the SEIU for wages and “diversion of resources” that ostensibly occurred in the weeks just prior to the trusteeship. It is still somewhat unclear what the basis of the award was, since the judge continually affirmed in the trial and instructions to the jury that UHW members and officers had the right to resist the trusteeship and to form a new union. Accordingly, the defendants plan to ask the judge to set aside the award, and if he does not, to appeal. Labor Notes writers sought to shed light on the issue with a little amplification of their own:
A large part of the damages were awarded because the staff and officers of what was then SEIU’s giant United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW) local, based in Oakland, used staff time to fight the International’s decision to split the local. That fight was carried out openly and transparently. The membership understood it and approved it. In 2008 demonstrations of 5,000 and 8,000 members protested the splitting and the trusteeship of the local, respectively. In January 2009 a meeting of 5,000 stewards and shop floor leaders voted to reject the International’s ultimatum on the split.
NUHW estimates that the SEIU spent in the neighborhood of $10 million on the trial, and although both sides are claiming a moral victory, it appears that the union members who funded both unions with their dues are the only real losers in the affair.
It appears SEIU leadership would be better off leaving their mouths shut, particularly when cameras are likely to be around. This great video captures the markedly racist and belittling comments from SEIU Executive VP Gerry Hudson addressing the issue of immigration reform. One would have to wonder how many in union leadership hold their members in this much contempt?