In late July, ground rules were the supposed sticking point, with SEIU demanding that UUR bankrupt itself before they would chip in even a penny to pay for the staff bargaining team's missed work time or travel. UUR has recently been able to fund an organizer, needs money in reserve like any union, and would of course need to come up with the other 50% in SEIU's proposal...
After some back and forth on this and the rest of the suggested rules, here's Judith McCullough's summary of just what a bad boss SEIU is...
-----
July 24, 2009
TO: Malcolm Harris, UUR
FR: Judith McCullough, SEIU
RE: UUR Bargaining
I am writing to set expectations about future bargaining between SEIU and UUR following our meeting on July 20 and 21.
We were disappointed that UUR chose, after months of no bargaining, to spend our entire time together rehashing preliminary ground rules for bargaining. In March, we had agreed to set aside discussion of ground rules to concentrate on bargaining a new contract.
We believe that we should focus our time, attention and energy on settling terms of a new contract. There are numerous challenges that can be addressed in a new contract, and the sooner we get to discussing these substantively, the sooner we will arrive at a settlement. On August 19, we will come prepared to discuss terms of the new contract but not preliminary “ground rules.”
UUR again raised the possibility of recording our bargaining sessions. I want to be clear that we do not consent to any such recording. Putting aside the legality and ethics of one party electronically recording bargaining over the objections of the other party, SEIU and UUR have never recorded or broadcast bargaining in the past and such activity would impede out ability to negotiate a contract. UUR’s continuing interest in this is disconcerting, especially as UUR introduced a secret telephone recording between a member of your bargaining team and a worker at our recent arbitration hearing.
We think SEIU headquarters is the most logical location for bargaining, especially given the current work assignments and locations of UUR team. In addition, the mediator is assigned to the Washington/Baltimore region and he will not be able to assist us in meetings out of the D.C. area. Nonetheless, the UUR team insists on alternate locations. In order to move contract bargaining along and to try to reach an agreement on a contract, SEIU accepts your proposal to alternate meeting locations between Chicago and Washington.
In the “rough and tumble” of bargaining, things are occasionally said in the heat of the moment which others may find offensive. Exchanges can be in blunt terms. We will live with that. But UUR’s behavior on Monday went far beyond appropriate bounds. It was deliberately insulting, offensive, and provocative. And this is not the first time. You are on notice we will not tolerate any further episodes.
-----
And here's UUR's response...
-----
August 11, 2009
To: Judith McCullough —SEIU
Cc: John Ronches --SEIU
Fr: Malcolm Harris—UUR
Re: Response to memo re continued bargaining
We apologize for the lateness of our response to your memo of July 24, 2009 concerning bargaining. We are also disappointed. We are most disappointed because after months of not being at the table to bargain, SEIU continues to want to arbitrarily set the terms for bargaining – and in this case seems to be headed in the direction of bad faith bargaining.
We came to the table prepared to start fresh and establish some reasonable ground rules for behavior and conduct. We presented four proposals that conceded much to SEIU, but SEIU’s counters went unchanged. We had a long discussion regarding SEIU’s assertion that when we come to the table everything starts at zero, including ground rules, and all must be bargained. That is the reason that we presented ground rules proposals, and SEIU countered (see the attached SEIU counter proposals). If, in fact, we started from zero, then there was no agreed upon basis for conduct; and, therefore, we are quite surprised by your reactions to our conduct.
In addition, concerning the issue of meeting elsewhere instead of in DC, SEIU seems to have had no end of “concerns.” Yet each of them, one after the other, has been addressed. At the table SEIU was concerned about finding meeting space – UUR agreed to find it. Then, in your letter, SEIU was concerned about the federal mediator’s assigned geography – that was resolved when he agreed to meet outside of DC. Now, there are concerns “given the current work assignments and locations of UUR [sic] team.” Besides the fact that there are no UUR bargaining team members who are currently in the DC area, it is not for SEIU to determine what is most convenient for our team. In short, your concerns are unfounded and, indeed, disingenuous.
In the “rough and tumble” world of bargaining, as you put it, ground rules lay a foundation for conduct. If SEIU has decided that ground rules are not necessary, then you should be prepared to operate without those and move forward. SEIU will not unilaterally set the terms under which we bargain. Either we will come to a mutual understanding determined by ground rules, or the federal mediator’s presence will continue to be required. Anything else we will view as bad faith bargaining on your part.
-----
It's clear as the conference room walls at 1800 Mass. that this is SEIU's big push to smash a weakened staff union.
And now management are targeting UUR president Malcolm Harris directly, removing him from an assignment near DC, and much more... come back tomorrow...
