Maybe it's Just Me but...

[CouriersPerspective]

(Sent to Walter Allen 10/02/08)

Hi,

Ok, so maybe it's just me but...

It seems to me that our Union (WE) just spent a lot of money renting out hotel meeting rooms so that the Members of our Union, working at Kaiser Permanente and the California Service Center, could vote on our most recent contract amendments. I speculate the amount spent to rent out the four hotel meeting rooms, across San Diego County, to be hundreds of dollars.

Now that our Union and Kaiser Permanente have been engaged within the 'Labor Management Partnership' for more than a decade, and seeing as how it would have been much more convenient for our Members to vote on-campus, why did we have to waste a lot of money for less convenience? It seems to me that Kaiser Permanente, our 'partner' should have had no issue with permitting us with the use of a little space at each facility for this sort of voting event.

Adding insult to injury, our Union recently emailed myself (and I'll go out on a limb here and expect that they emailed others as well) a statement encouraging me to complete this year's Kaiser Permanente People Pulse survey. Why does our Union allow Management access to me, through my Union, while Management does not allow my Union access to me, through my Employer?

So....maybe it's just me.

Dustin

[CouriersPerspective]

Re: Maybe it's Just Me but...
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:18 AM

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>

To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

Dustin,

I appreciate your questions and am happy to answer them. It is easy to form negative opinions about such decisions when the facts are not entirely known to you, but I would suggest that simply asking for the information would be a better approach.

Our Union has the legal responsibility to present all negotiated contract proposals for ratification.  We are only required to make ourselves, and the package available to our members and conduct a vote.  How and where is not mandated in the law.  It is the policy however of this Union to make it as available as possible, so we conduct several meetings across the service area to make it as convenient as possible.  The locations we choose are deliberately NOT on the property of the employer in order to assure members the privacy to comment as they see fit and not fear intrusion of any kind.  

Regarding the Partnership and management's responsibility to this process, there is none.  This process is strictly the business of the Union.  And you should also know that there are many things that the employer cannot provide, or pay for by law.  In this area this Union is especially careful and does not accept anything of value from the employer that may be in conflict with the law.  

As for the People Pulse reminder, that was the Union communicating with our members, not management.  We encourage our members to participate in that process because we believe the results should accurately reflect the environment, and all voices should be heard.  These results are often used to make decisions that impact our members throughout the year.  My feeling is that if I am going to be told by management how our members feel about certain issues according to the People Pulse scores I would at the very least like to know that as many Local 30 members responded as possible.

With regard to KP's policies around the use of their internal email I would suggest contacting KP.  

Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

Walter

[CouriersPerspective]

From: "Dustin Teske"
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

Walter,

Thank you for your unexpectedly expeditious response and for trying to clarify my "confusion".

We agree in that it is human nature to form negative opinions in regards to issues, when the circumstances are not entirely known. Unfortunately in this instance, one may still have negative opinions after the circumstances are known as well.

You state that the rationale as to why only non-Employer locations were chosen, to conduct the ratification meetings, was, "...in order to assure members the privacy to comment as they see fit and not fear intrusion of any kind". This seems like excessive paranoia; We are in a partnership with our Employer and, within the context of the partnership, an agreement in regards to a few, small wage increases and increased retiree benefits was made. What type of comments, about those two issues and which the Member making said comments may prefer Management not be aware of, would one expect to hear at the ratification meetings? Further, if any Member truly did have comments or questions which (s)he didn't want the Employer privy to, why couldn't the Member simply attend a ratification meeting offered at the OPEIU, Local 30 office? Or, better still, why couldn't the Member simply call the Union office at a time convenient to him/her, make the comments/ ask the questions in complete privacy, and then attend a ratification meeting at the most convenient place and time for him/her, in order to vote?

Your confirmation that the Labor Management Partnership and Management have, "...[no] responsibility to this [ratification] process...," solidifies the point I made; The Employer and Union formed a partnership greater than a decade ago, yet here is a prime example of how the Employer could easily provide a benefit for our Union and it's Members (which wouldn't cost the Employer anything [and is legal] and would result in a significant savings for our Union and added convenience for it's Members) but the Employer does not. - What an interesting way to show how we are partners.

Due to the fact that (out of about 4,000 OPEIU, Local 30 Members who work for Kaiser Permanente) only about 200 voted, it seems quite probable that more may have chosen to participate had the process been made more convenient for them. As an added benefit, the Union (we) could have saved hundreds of dollars by not having to rent out numerous hotel meeting rooms.

In regards to your answer about the Employer's People Pulse Survey, I really don't see how the results of that survey could be of benefit when the Union is, "...told by management how our members feel about certain issues..." But, if you believe these results, in any way, may benefit the Members, I will trust your judgment.

In regards to your suggestion regarding the use of the Employer's internal email, I do not know what this suggestion was in response to, but thank you for the suggestion.

I understand that, as the elected Executive Director of our Union, it is ultimately you who controls which voting procedures will be utilized. The above are my thoughts in regards to the issues discussed and I appreciate your taking the time to consider them.

Again, thank you for your previous response and attempting to clarify my "confusion".

Fraternally,

Dustin