« Why Is A "Progressive" Lobbying for Comcast? | Main | The No-Raid Pact--Day After »
September 19, 2005
No Raiding Deal SEIU-AFSCME
UPDATES: I've received all the key documents that relate to what I think is a pretty significant deal between AFSCME and SEIU to cooperate and avoid raiding situations. Here are the documents:
The deal covers home care workers in California (as well as side letters to that agreements), child care workers in California and Pennsylvania and a no-raid commitment from both parties. In particular, this resolves the dispute in California that many people here have been commenting about.
I think when you take the time to read all these documents, it feels like a serious commitment to avoid raids and conflict--which I've argued, with some others here, make no sense when 90 percent of workers do not have a union. So, once again, another sign that things are settling down after the July AFL-CIO convention hysteria about "the split."
UPDATE: Here is the official release--
================================================
NEW AFSCME-SEIU PACT TO HELP MORE WORKERS WIN VOICE AT WORK
Breakthrough Agreement Includes “No-Raid” Commitment to Increase Organizing
WASHINGTON –
The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have reached a series of breakthrough agreements that renew their commitment to protecting and preserving existing collective bargaining relationships and will allow them to devote their energies to strategically uniting workers in such key industries such as childcare and homecare.
“When we strengthen our cooperation and help workers in the same industry unite, everybody wins,” said SEIU President Andy Stern. “We look forward to working together with AFSCME to create better jobs and provide quality services.”
“This agreement is a victory for the millions of workers who want a union but don’t have one,” said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee. “I look forward to working with SEIU to help unorganized workers get good jobs, health care and a voice at work.”
Under the national, two-year pact, AFSCME and SEIU agreed that neither union will attempt to raid, decertify or otherwise interfere with existing representation rights. The agreement also establishes a joint committee to address issues of union density and jurisdiction, creates a joint “Unity Local” of child care providers in California and Pennsylvania and creates a unified homecare union in California.
California homecare providers not currently protected by an AFSCME or SEIU collective bargaining agreement will be represented by both unions in the new California United Homecare Workers Union, AFSCME/SEIU. The partnership will help roughly 25,000 caregivers who provide vital in-home services to California’s seniors and people with disabilities win fair contracts that include a livable wage and health care.
The 120,000 home care and nursing home workers who are members of SEIU Local 434B and the 60,000 members of UDW/AFSCME will work in partnership while maintaining their autonomy.
In California and Pennsylvania, SEIU and AFSCME will also collaborate to unite home-based family child care providers and will work together to improve benefits and stability in the child care profession. In both states, family child care providers would become members of the new statewide union, to be affiliated with both AFSCME and SEIU.
The two unions also established a legally binding dispute-resolution procedure.
September 19, 2005 in Inside Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d83424d51b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Raiding Deal SEIU-AFSCME:
» After the split from The Bellman
Worries that labor would eat itself may have been overblown. Last week, the Teamsters and CWA entered into an alliance to jointly represent customer service employees in the airline industry. Yesterday, AFSCME and SEIU signed a no-raiding agreement cove [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 20, 2005 8:23:07 AM
» On the No Raid Agreement from Unions-Firms-Markets
Yesterday, Tasini's Working Life blog broke the news that SEIU and AFSCME have reached a no raid agreement. Today the mainstream media, including the Washington Post, has picked up the story. While some see this agreement as a sign that [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 20, 2005 9:55:51 AM
Comments
I think that a little discussion on "jointly represented" employees. First the IBT/CWA deal, now this. I've heard of this before at a steel mill with IBT/USWA and public sector with AFGE/AFSCME, and Aramark type employees with SEIU/Unite-Here.
I'm just real wary about whether such arrangements are really good ideas. I understand the involved unions are happy since they both get a cut of the action. But do the workers get better contracts, better training, better control over their union, etc...? Or are they a step child local that neither international works with?
Posted by: Mark | Sep 19, 2005 3:27:59 PM
There's a longstanding experience with good results all the way around. PEF - the Public Employees Federation, is joint AFT/SEIU union representing 50,000 NY state workers.
Posted by: John | Sep 19, 2005 4:33:49 PM
I can assure you that there are NO employees who are jointly represented by AFGE and AFSCME. NONE. The two unions are friendly enough, but they do NOT hold a single cert jointly. There is also (almost) NO joint bargaining between any components of the two unions. AFGE represents a few thousand DC government employees, and AFSCME represents a few thousand federal employees, for various historical reasons. The compensation bargaining for DC workers IS a multi-union agreement, involving a couple of other unions as well, but the DC AFGE and AFSCME locals are separate and hold separate recognitions and have separate contracts on non-compensation matters.
Posted by: pw | Sep 19, 2005 7:59:26 PM
These merged locals may actually be a great model to encourage new organizing and cooperation.
Cooperation at the local level has the potential to be far more significant then national groups like CTW or AFL-CIO.
The key is maintaining real solidarity and whether SEIU is capable of this.
Only after a horribly expensive and ill advised raid in California and after losing an election 16-1 and being out organized in several counties- did SEIU make this deal. Essentially, the workers sent them packing from California.
Posted by: Cautiously Optimitsic | Sep 19, 2005 8:11:02 PM
Well, this is good news. But no mention of the fight going on in Houston with AFSCME 1550 over meet and confer petition.
Posted by: Ron | Sep 19, 2005 8:12:17 PM
Not to troll too much, but only a green AFSCME staffer could say "the workers sent [SEIU] packing in California." This deal is basically a complete victory for SEIU, as far as new organizing is concerned. And a stacked, rushed vote count on a sweetheart contract with one county in CA is not exactly being out-organized. Was it sixteen to one because only 17 out of 9,000 workers voted?
Posted by: optimistic? | Sep 19, 2005 9:12:00 PM
I'm not sure this is a victory for one side or the other, but is a sign of sanity taking over. 434B and UDW in Cali were about to sign a similar deal when AFSCME trusteed them and the two sides were looking at protracted battles in PA and Cali. There are two down sides to the agreement: It lasts for two years and the dispute in Houston is still unresolved.
Teamsters and CWA getting along? SEIU and AFSCME kissing eachother? What's next Andy Stern and Steve Early dating?
Posted by: RoscoeRich | Sep 19, 2005 10:09:46 PM
I have but one question. WHY pull out of the AFL-CIO if we are going to go and make side deals with the very unions that pulled out. This makes me think that it's only about the money and NOT OUR MEMBERS!!!!!! I' very diappointed in us.
Posted by: Elizabeth Roberson | Sep 20, 2005 9:04:53 AM
Is Cautiously Optimistic reading the same documents I am? Because I think having the president and sec-treas of this new statewide homecare local come out of SEIU is a pretty clear indication of who was winning that fight. Or do you believe that McEntee just gave that up because he's such a nice guy?
Posted by: belleunion | Sep 20, 2005 9:26:49 AM
Looks like the UDW business might have actually been a leverage move to show AFSCME that they were in big trouble and better sign already. In retrospect it looks like it was never actually about raiding. Though I am not sure that a straight union politcs powerplay is any better.
Posted by: Ray | Sep 20, 2005 10:00:58 AM
Elizabeth: legitimate question. I think both factors can live in the same universe. SEIU, and the other unions that pulled out, feel that they want to direct their money in a different direction and try new approaches that don't match with remaining in the AFL-CIO--whether they are successful or not is another question that only time will tell. At the same time, SEIU and AFSCME don't want to be draining resources from one another hence the no-raiding agreement.
Generally, I would say: maybe we can all just take it at face value rather than focus on who won or lost. It's just possible that both unions decided it wasn't worth the resources to fight each other and made an agreement that will end up being good for each union. While cynicism is often warranted, perhaps, in this case, the words mean exactly what they mean.
Posted by: Tasini | Sep 20, 2005 10:15:00 AM



Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
