Behind the Scenes: CWA V. UNITE-HERE

    Some of the tension from the battle over the future of labor is playing out in organizing campaigns. Back in May, we learned of a tiff between UNITE-HERE and CWA over who should organize workers at tribal casinos in California. UNITE-HERE sued CWA in federal court alleging breach of contract, arguing that UNITE-HERE was granted exclusive jurisdiction to organize California's casino industry and that CWA agreed to that. The stakes are high because we're talking here the right to represent tens of thousands of workers.

    Well, the fight is still pretty hot, which shows how badly relationships are fraying. On June 9th, CWA prez Morty Bahr send a letter to John Sweeney about this, which I just got (see below). For the uninitiated, when Bahr talks about "registration," he is essentially referring to the process where the AFL-CIO referees dispute between unions over which union should be given sole jurisdiction to organize a group of workers. Interestingly, UNITEHERE has forged a joint effort with the Teamsters and Laborers, two of their partners in the Change To Win Coalition--a fact that seems to annoy Bahr.

    I also find interesting that, though Bahr refers to the lawsuit by UNITEHERE that alleges that he violated an agreement he made, he doesn't come right out and say there was no such agreement--though perhaps he is...ummmm....barred from speaking about the issue given the litigation.

=========================================================

June 9th 2005

Mr. John J. Sweeney, President
AFL-CIO
815 16th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Dear President Sweeney

Re: California Tribal Casinos

CWA objects to the request of UNITE-HERE, IUOE, IBT and LIUNA to extend the registration of its strategic organizing campaign for the State of California Indian Gaming Casino service workers. Unlike the two previous requests, the current request seeks to expand the registration to all employees rather than solely service workers. CWA objects to this request for several reasons.

First, UNITEHERE has been granted five years of strategic registration to organize the service workers at tribal casinos. As you know, CWA already represents employees at tribal casinos. We have repeatedly sought to work with HERE. Now, UNITEHERE seeks strategic registration with three other new partners, none of whom have any current interest in the California casinos.

Second, despite CWA's current representation of workers in two California casinos, UNITEHERE's request for registration ignores CWA's interest in non-service workers at the tribal casinos. UNITEHERE's request for registration actually expands its prior registration from "California Tribal Casino Service Workers" to all "California Tribal Casino Workers." Again, if the registration is granted, it will unfairly discriminate against CWA where a clear interest exists in favor of other unions where there is no interest whatsoever.

Finally, for the first time since Article XXI was enacted, an AFL-CIO union has filed a lawsuit in federal court against  another AFL-CIO union. UNITEHERE has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia against CWA's alleged breach of an agreement between President Wilhelm and me.

Notably, this lawsuit was filed before the Article XXI hearing. Article XX specifically prohibits such lawsuits. It was not included in Article XXI as there appeared to be no reason to include a prohibition against something that would not conceivably occur. Taking a dispute between affiliates outside of "the House of Labor" when the Constitution proscribes a dispute's resolution process should not be rewarded with an extension of the certification.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we remain committed to working together as part of a joint organizing effort.

Sincerely and fraternally,

Morton Bahr
President

cc: Stuart Acuff, AFL-CIO Organizing Director

Comments

[Zach]

what's UNITE-HERE's version of why they sued CWA before using the normal XXI hearing? is it a test case for what happens if they leave the AFL?

[Ty]

I think a little context is important here. First, HERE represents the vast majority of workers in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and is widely recognized for its success, particularly in Vegas, at large-scale new organizing leading to real worker power and a dramatically improved standard of living for traditionally low-paid service-sector workers such as housekeepers and dishwashers.

Second, it is well known in labor circles where I come from (southern California) that CWA got its two contracts at tribal casinos in the state by signing sweetheart deals with the tribes. Their contracts allow discrimiation based on tribal membership and have no enforceable "just cause" provision. Their representatives were invited into the casinos to talk to workers, and when an HERE organizer tried to follow them in, he was physically assaulted by casino security gaurds, who broke his ribs. Now, CWA is threatening to interfere with HERE's active organizing drives at other casinos in southern California.

Of course, it's natural that a tribe operating a large casino would rather deal with any other union than with the union that brought Vegas to its knees. But that's exactly why it's important that tribal casino workers be members of the same union as their counterparts in L.V. and A.C. The whole point of industry-based organizing, going back to the IWW and CIO, is to prevent employers from playing one group of workers against another.

The CWA likes to talk about letting workers choose which union they want to belong to, but their track record shows that it's really about letting the bosses choose which union they'd rather deal with, and that's exactly what the New Unity Partnership/Unite to Win/Change to Win unions have been trying to prevent, so-far unsuccesfully, by changing the structure of the AFL-CIO.

[Mitchell]

their track record shows that it's really about letting the bosses choose which union they'd rather deal with, and that's exactly what the New Unity Partnership/Unite to Win/Change to Win unions have been trying to prevent

Right. The Carpenters are all about not undercutting other unions by offering sweetheart deals to the bosses. That's been the Carpenters' raison d'etre since Doug McCarron took over. I mean, Stern couldn't have chosen a building trades partner less committed to fighting sweetheart deals than the UBC.

[Ty]

I can't claim that none of the Change to Win unions have internal problems, and I don't know enough to comment on the IBC's attitude toward sweetheart deals. But I do know what the situation is in the tribal casinos, and I'm confident that the campaigns undertaken by the Change to Win Coalition will be about building power, not cutting deals.

I would point out that the Carpenters haven't been publically allied with Unite to Win or Change to Win since the NUP was dissolved.

Ty

[Guillermo Perez]

Yet more evidence why these jurisdictional arrangements don't work, and why some form of meaningful democracy seems the only plausible way of dealing with this. In other words, let the casino workers themselves decide which union they want to join. If CWA's casinos have lousy contracts and UNITE-HERE are bad asses in Vegas, etc. then I'd guess UNITE-HERE should win this pretty handily. I've actually heard that union election rates are higher when two unions compete than when the choice is between one union or no union. Also, I'm puzzeled as to why UNITE-HERE would prefer a partnership with the Laborers and/or the Teamsters to one with CWA when it comes to gambling casinos (and please don't tell me that neither of these two do backroom, top-down organizing)?

[dh]

you mean there are unions that still run elections????

[wd]

I think saying that HERE "brought Vegas to its knees" is a bit off. My understanding has always been that the brilliant wall-to-wall organizing strategy in Vegas was actually a highly choreographed series of mobilizations combined with some very shady backroom dealing. Ty, what's some evidence of "real worker power" in Vegas-- for the city with the highest union density in the country, there's a remarkably low level of member mobilization.

Check out, for example, the Las Vegas Sun on gentleman's agreements in Vegas-- not conclusive, but at least raises some questions about Wilhelm's miracle organizing drive out there:
www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/business/2004/mar/15/516529626.html

[Ty]

Wd, I think D. Taylor's response to the allegations of "secret deals" in that article is pretty right on: sometimes it's more strategic to organize whole non-union properties than to pick away at the edges of places that are already union. Those "choreographed" mobilizations were a way of making an example of the casinos that refused to cooperate, and they scared the majority of the casinos into signing card check agreements. Now Vegas is the only place in the country where a dishwasher can buy a house and send his or her kids to college. And, by the way, one of the "choreographed" mobilizations was a 6-year strike at the Frontier in which none of the strikers ever crossed the line.

As for a low level of member mobilization, that couldn't be further from the truth. A couple years ago when they were threatening to strike, just about every casino worker in the city was in the streets. Most of the organizing of non-union casinos is done by rank-and-file leaders on a leave of absence from their casino jobs. Vegas is a model for the entire labor movement.

[rich]

I agree with Ty, I was at the strike vote in las Vegas a few years ago, and there was 30,000 workers voting. The convention center was so packed with housekeepers that it was faster to park and walk a mile than to drive.

Vegas is an amazing city for the labor movement. Local 226 has organized 9,000 workers in the city this year, has elected a member to the state senate, held a six year strike and won. Tell me another Local with that record.

[wj]

Thanks for the responses, but I'm still a bit confused. "Sometimes it's more strategic to organize whole non-union properties than to pick away at the edges of places that are already union." Does trying to organize shops wall-to-wall equal "picking away at the edges?" I can't see how it's more strategic to have some workers in a shop union and some non-union. When another union fails to organize all the workers in a shop, SEIU, UNITE and all these others bury them for not organizing aggressively enough. But when HERE decides to leave a bunch of non-union workers in a hotel, it's part of their bold strategy. Hmmm.

And I also still don't see evidence of power-- lots of crappy unions mobilize their members every few years around contract time. I recognize that Vegas workers make more than their counterparts in Reno, but part of that has to do with the fact that Vegas's economy is expanding rapidly, far more rapidly than just about any city in the US. So good wages and benefits are one result of having power, but they don't equal power.

When I say power, I'm talking about-- how much control do workers have over their working conditions? When they're sexually harassed by a manager, what happens? Do they file a grievance and sit around waiting for it to be dealt with? Or is shop floor action a likely response? Rich, it sounds like you're in Vegas. Can you speak to this issue?

Again, I'm not saying the power isn't there, but periodic mobilizations around contract time don't equal power.

[Ty]

WJ, I didn't say it was good that some of the casino contracts in Vegas aren't entirely wall-to-wall. I only said that any reasonable person could forgive HERE Local 226 for focusing all of its energy on organizing the entire MGM Grand (which I believe is the largest hotel in the world) than on organizing the laundry workers at, say, the Tropicana.

As for your definition of worker power, I can only speak for Local 11 in Los Angeles, but I can tell you that here in the city of Angels, where we aspire to be as powerful as our sister local in Sin City, our standard practice is to solve shop-floor problems with shop-floor action. Sure, we fill out the grievance forms also, but only as a technicality and an afterthought.

By the way, this is an important definition of worker power, but in an economy with only 8% union density, skyrocketing economic inequality, steadily deteriorating contract standards in just about all industries, and less and less worker power every day by any definition, this type of worker power only matters insofar as it's part of a general culture of organizing in which members are mobilized not only to solve grievances but also to fight for good contracts and, at the same time, for the right of their counterparts in non-union workplaces to organize.

Members who cut their teeth as union activists by leading a march on the boss over a shop-floor issue must be recruited and trained as shop stewards to lead contract fights and strikes, and those shop stewards must be recruited and trained as organizers--to take their experience out of their shops and into the field. Workers will never have real power unless we get serious about organizing the unorganized.

[mlc]

This website is amazing because I had no idea CA was even fighting for indian casinos. How could this be since Rep. Pombo (CA) is fighting in DC so that NY can't get indian casinos on land that is not already rightfully theirs. Forget that the land that is theirs is already developed with something other than a casino. Wouldn't you say this is a conflict of interest?

[Kuppersbusch]

<a href=http://mwave.com.ua/brand/kuppersbusch/31/>Kuppersbusch</a> I think few people agree with you, but I am among them. filkrostrina

[seroowadoo]

<a href=http://hi5.com/friend/group/4117045--Health+Care+Branding--front-html>Health Care Branding</a> <a href=http://hi5.com/friend/group/4117049--Rating+of+Multiple+Vitamins--front-html>Ratin Bof Multiple Vitamins</a> <a href=http://hi5.com/friend/group/4117053--Business+Plan+Software--front-html>Business Plan Software</a> <a href=http://hi5.com/friend/group/411

[vozingrangder]

<a href=http://cameras-catalog.com/kodak/easyshare_cd33/1810/>Kodak CD33</a> Interesting point of view cos of very plausible arguments vozingrangder

[anderstolik]

<a href=http://cameras-catalog.com/kodak/easyshare_v1273/1370/>KODAK V1273</a> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. anderstolik

[biliktrastin]

<a href=http://teleki.com.ua/brand/akira/3/>телевизоры akira</a> The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. biliktrastin

[foghisont]

<a href=http://cameras-catalog.com/kodak/easyshare_z612/731/>Kodak Z612</a> The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it. foghisont

[gilliancentis]

<a href=http://yourphone.com.ua/brand/pantech-curitel/37/>телефоны Pantech Curitel</a> Poeple are not so innocent as they seem to be. gilliancentis

[kilardinas]

<a href=http://cameras-catalog.com/kodak/easyshare_dx3215_zoom/1704/>Kodak DX3215</a> He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help. kilardinas

[lakirjosda]

<a href=http://avatori.ru/category/17/117/>кондиционеры</a> We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. lakirjosda

[liderspondik]

<a href=http://seeerch.com/search/borrego_springs_homes>borrego springs homes for sale</a> Every problem has a gift for you in its hands. liderspondik

[minakrytnab]

<a href=http://kaboz.com/search/miami_used_cars>Miami Used Cars fsbo</a> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. minakrytnab

[mintratyha]

<a href=http://cameras-catalog.com/kodak/eesyshare_cx7310/2272/>Kodak CX7310</a> A different world cannot be built by indifferent people mintratyha

[vidiktrasi]

<a href=http://mwave.com.ua/brand/rolsen/40/>микроволновые печи rolsen</a> Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form vidiktrasi