State budget revealed

Analysis by Russell Kilday-Hicks printed in the November 2007 issue of “University Employee” CSUEU newsletter

The here and now
It’s a truism that California has a thriving movie business. And like the movie “Groundhog Day,” the California legislature is stuck in a yearly remake called “Groundhog Budget Day.” And, just like some overused Hollywood blockbuster, we just saw sequel number 17 (six in the last seven years, all filmed over the last 30 years). But, you can relax now. California finally has a state budget. This was not the latest they’ve ever been at getting the job done. While the constitutional deadline was mid-June with the real deadline the start of the new fiscal year at the beginning of the summer, July 1, in the end, they were only 52 days late. The latest the state has ever been was in 2002 when it was more than two months overdue.

This tired script repeats, and may go on repeating, year after year, because the major elements: the competing powers, the budget structure, and the reluctance of key entities in the state to take responsibility for paying their fair share, all resist change. What’s at stake doesn’t change, however. But if the state is going to be serious about investing in its future, which would include our particular charge of supporting the higher education of the children of the working class in California, change—of a particular sort—is just what we need.

BTW—You may have heard that we will still most likely get most of our negotiated raises. While our raises may not be as large as we had hoped, due to some contingency language in the budget tied to the whims of the legislature to provide more funding than previously planned to the CSU, the language just drives us back to the bargaining table.

Not to say the legislature didn’t explore taking away what was minimally promised. That trial balloon was floated and something quite unprecedented happened. The legislature got a joint letter from the chancellor’s office and the unions representing the majority of the staff in the largest higher education system in the world (nearly 40,000 of us) saying that this would be a bad idea. Of course, we don’t need convincing but sometimes you have to make some noise to stop a dog from barking up the wrong tree.

Budget and bargaining past
That letter and the new climate of cooperation reflect a power shift and our very real gains in our involvement and influence in the budget process. Here’s the story: In years past when we first went to the bargaining table (usually in February or March, before the “May revise” when the governor adjusts his numbers based on actual state revenue rather than January’s projected numbers) the CSU would steadfastly refuse to talk money. They would talk anything else, from the weather to the dotting of “i’s” and the crossing of “t’s” but their stance remained: “There was no point in talking money until the state budget passed,” they would say. “Only then will we know how much we are dealing with.” This whole process was bass ackwards, so to speak. Our needs mattered little to the CSU. That’s not real bargaining and was probably a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the bargaining law laid out in the Higher Education Employee Relations Act (HEERA).

Then, after the legislature passed a budget, with funding for the CSU at least partially based on the CSU’s own stated needs in their budget request to the legislature, the CSU would skip happily over to the bargaining table saying: “Here’s the pie CSUEU; how do you want to slice it?” Unfortunately, that pie was often pretty lean to begin with, which is why we saw pitiful raises of nothing or a measly 1.5 percent that hardly kept pace with inflation these years past. Upon closer examination there was a fatal flaw in this game. CSUEU President Pat Gantt understood member frustration but felt people were too quick to blame a seemingly powerless union. “Many people forget that we can’t get more dollars on the bargaining table until the Legislature allocates it to the CSU in the budget,” he said. The problem: the CSU was not asking for enough money to begin with. We, your union, were determined to change that.

We entered the process like never before with rallies on almost all the campuses (some held more than one), with letters and e-mails (Chancellor Reed was heard to complain about the number of e-mails, once asking a gathering of CSU labor leaders “What good does it do for me to get 500 e-mails a day?”), with visits to lawmakers, and, along with our sister union, the CFA, by putting pressure on the media to cover what was really going on. “Something happened; we did something they have never seen before,” President Gantt said. This is the key to our future.

The budget this time
The almost-yearly budget stalemate is usually characterized as bipartisan bickering. This time around the “partisan gridlock” of two competing political parties came with a new twist—a Republican governor siding with the Democratic majority. After Republicans and Democrats in the Assembly came to agreement (only a month late at that point) it seemed like we were close to a resolution because only two Senate Republicans were needed to sign on to get the two-thirds majority needed (the two-thirds requirement is from a law passed in 1879, and California is one of only three states in the country with this rule). In all other areas of state governance we have majority rule (a.k.a. democracy) except when it comes to (what some would say is the crux of power) finances. In 1978 a majority of the voters of California added tax increases to the short list of a two-thirds legislative voting requirement. Passing a tax cut is not held to the same standard, however. And that outlines one of the issues needing to be addressed to fix this perpetual mess.

While trying to hold the “high ground” on why the Senate Republicans needed to delay agreement (to be “fiscally responsible” in a time when state spending exceeds income, so they said) an examination of the proposed last-minute cuts they demanded tells a different story. Some had nothing to do with the budget.

In the end, the state was held hostage for an extra month by a handful of Republican senators acting without the approval of even the state leader of their party. This had the affect of exposing the game like never before. The first Senate Republican to turn, Abel Maldonado, stated that his colleagues had essentially moved the goal posts. He said they had already gotten everything they asked for at the beginning of the process. Senate majority leader Don Perata demanded the Republicans “tell us what you want.” One of the items on their over $800 million list of additionally proposed cuts they responded with included the yearly attack on the “UC Labor Union Institute.” Of course their real name is the Miguel Contreras Labor Program. Nowhere on the institute’s website is there a mention of unions. The Republicans call this non-profit research group a “special interest” because it’s one of only a few groups in the state doing research on the working population in California and occasionally that research shows the advantages of unions for working people (and unionized businesses too, by the way). There are countless groups doing “pro-business” (anti-union) research that the Republicans do not call “special” and are perfectly happy to keep funded.

The Republican holdout may have convinced the governor to use his “line-item” veto to cut an additional $700 million from the budget after it “passed” but he may have done that anyway. He promised not to touch the CSU and he kept that promise. In the final analysis, like the answer to the question of why a dog licks his private parts (because he can), nothing more was gained for the Republicans but the crass display of power for power’s sake. It must be tough to be a minority party for years on end, but there is a chance their manipulation and abuse of their budget responsibility, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez characterized their position, will backfire on them.

Long-term fix
The problems are not that simple but many of the solutions are. The Republican “hammer” on every “nail” deemed a “special interest” will not rebuild our state. How does one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest country on the planet have a yearly problem with revenue outstripping income? The problem comes from having to rely on sales; when sales go down, fees go up (like student fees) because fees don’t take a two-thirds vote. The Republican mantra of “no new taxes” is smoke and mirrors. They are just pushing up “taxes” by another name. What they mean to say is the little people should pay and the rich shall get richer. And they are, believe me.

For now, what is to be done?
Here’s the real deal: political pressure. It’s the only game in town. Like we saw when the legislature floated the idea of not fully funding the “compact” made between the governor and the chancellor, the pressure turned them back. We must get better at this, not only with our coalitions like the SEIU State Council but in the local relationships we create and the noise each and every one of us can make. We need to convince both the legislature, one lawmaker at a time, and the taxpaying citizens in the state that not only can we afford an investment in the CSU, we have a bleak future if we don’t do just that.

The only long-range fix: change the two-thirds requirement (we tried and failed in 2004); return to majority rule and fix this tired script. I can’t bear to watch another Sacramento sequel.

Dear CSEA GC Delegates: With this election … stop digging

I want to take you back three General Councils ago. This was when I was first getting involved on a statewide basis. Like all first-timers I came to GC not knowing what to expect but it was a profound experience in a number of ways. Like now, back then CSEA was divided. There was a terrible feud between the leaders of the day. Within one division was a ray of hope. After all, they had the word democracy in their name. Some of you may remember the noble cause of the Caucus for a Democratic Union. I joined them and worked hard on what I thought was a solution. But it turns out the opposing sides were too much alike; new sides were formed and the discord continued. But then, at GC, one leader stood up and proposed a compromise. Jim Joska from the then CSU Division, in a passionate speech that made a lot of sense, offered us a way out. But, alas, it was an opportunity lost. This body, and some very stubborn leaders, chose to continue along the same path.

At the next GC, I got further involved in trying to find a solution out of our morass. I brokered a meeting between the CSU Division’s leaders and SEIU President Andy Stern at a time when the CSEA president was probably hoping such a meeting would not ever take place. Our division had little to no relationship with SEIU and that just didn’t make sense to me because, like it or not, we were affiliated. Maybe that effort failed, but I like to think that it started something. That work certainly needs to continue. As an aside, I want to say here that we need to give credit to SEIU for supporting the Committee On the Future of CSEA. I’m convinced now SEIU does not want CSEA to fail. For that, I’m thankful.

But here’s the lesson. This is something I was trying to get across to my seven year old recently: when you are in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. To do this you have to do two things: recognize your position and take some responsibility for the shovel in your hands. Only then can you hope to get out of that hole. Only then can you ask for help, to get someone to throw you a rope. We can all agree we’ve been in a hole, but some of our leaders have continued digging despite this knowledge—all the while pointing the finger at the shovel the other guy is holding. Continuing like this, together we will reach China someday.

Like many of you, I’m tired of the infighting, the petty one-up-man-ship. Many people think this is politics. It doesn’t have to be. There is no doubt politics can be nasty. Point of personal privilege: my father died a few months ago. When he heard I was running for an elected office he warned me, it’s “too political,” he said. But my dad was not seeing the whole picture. The best of politics is when you have a leader who listens and follows what’s best for the group and then works like hell to empower those lagging behind to catch up and join in the fun. We’ve seen some of the worst of politics in this divided CSEA house. Together we can turn back the grave challenges facing us in attacks on our healthcare and our pensions—but only if we stop digging.

Over the summer I read a depressing book called “Labor’s Untold Story.” The labor history of our nation is not a pretty story and certainly not a hopeful story. Unfortunately, the internal struggles some of us have lived through in CSEA is not all that uncommon past or present. In the last chapter, the author tries to insert some hope that he probably felt wouldn’t be there otherwise. It seemed odd. But when you think about it, we are all a bunch of oddballs. What are we doing here? We should be home watching football and scheming up ways to work the system to enrich ourselves. Isn’t that what America is all about?

Well, for some it is. For us there is another vision. We are blessed by that vision in two ways. Not only do we get to be in the union movement to better the lives of working folk and force this nation live up to some of its promises, but we get to stand up for public service. “Labor’s Untold Story” starts with the wise words of President Lincoln, who said: “All that harms labor is treason to America. No line can be drawn between these two. If any man tells you he loves America, yet he hates labor, he is a liar. If a man tell you he trusts America, yet he fears labor, he is a fool.”
In Lincoln’s terms, we’ve seen a lot of treason in America, and it’s not the threat from labor but from the work of dangerous fools that should concern us. This movement can rescue the best promise of America but it has to remain small “d” democratic. To achieve that, we have to remember to talk too each other and not at each other. At least half of talking is listening. Also, we need to remember that the longest journey is made up of the tiniest steps. The real journey is in those steps. The goal will always be there but the ends never justify the means—the ends are the means. In other words, how we get there is just as important as arriving. From what I see, we need to treat each other better on this journey together. We don’t like bullying behavior in the work house; we shouldn’t tolerate it in the CSEA house either.

Lincoln also said a house divided cannot stand. With this election, let’s take this opportunity to un-divide our house. We missed it the last time it came around. My simple message is, when opportunity knocks, answer the door. Stop pretending nobody’s home.

Elect anyone you want but keep this in mind. With this election, let’s leave the shovels behind and start climbing together to higher ground. The change in scenery is long overdue.

—Russell Kilday-Hicks, “GC Times” editor, chair of the CSUEU Communications Committee, Chapter 305 president, SF State

(Written for the over 1,000 delegates at CSEA’s 64th General Council conference, Oct. 6-8 in San Jose, Calif.)

Labor Day message

In honor of Labor Day some words of wisdom from President “honest Abe” Lincoln:

“All that harms labor is treason to America. No line can be drawn between these two. If any man tells you he loves America, yet he hates labor, he is a liar. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet he fears labor, he is a fool.”

Happy Labor Day. Peace.

Letter to faculty on first day of semester

Aug. 27, 2007

Dear SF State Faculty,

The film “A Day Without a Mexican” (directed by Sergio Arau, 2004) explores the outcome of a California without a Latino labor force. Without warning, millions of service workers—whose vast contributions to California’s economy are generally taken for granted—have disappeared. The ensuing impact on society is dire.

Imagine this scenario unfolding at our SF State campus. Imagine what it would be like if the mostly invisible, taken-for-granted work force of custodians, gardeners, grounds’ workers, copy machine operators, office managers and support personnel, computer network operators and help desk professionals, health care specialists, laboratory and theater technicians, etc. did not show up for work. For example, people often comment on the beauty of our campus without knowing the hard work that goes into creating and maintaining our park-like campus environment, whose workers usually start their workday at 4 a.m.

University staff and service workers exist and are an essential part of our vibrant community. We are here and we have always been here. Without the benefits of a labor union, however, we would not have much of a voice in this community.

The California State University Employees Union (CSUEU) represents most of the non-faculty university employees on campus (nearly 1,400) and in the CSU (nearly 16,000). Unionized employees contribute to a more stable, higher-quality workforce. Union membership has been shown to increase employee productivity, boost morale, and open the channels of communication between employees and their supervisors. This contributes to a more positive work environment on the campus level, which in turn enables the faculty to do what you do best—educate.

The California Faculty Association (CFA) and CSUEU are both members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Faculty and staff face many of the same employee-related issues: salary, health care, working environment, challenges to our pensions, etc. We are pledged to work together for a better CSU.

When both faculty and staff are active in their unions and aware of their respective rights, the campus community benefits tremendously. Faculty who are aware of staff rights contribute to the betterment of the campus community and of faculty/staff relations.

Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the CSUEU if you have not already done so (especially if you are supervising staff) and I encourage you to become active in your own union. As I am fond of saying, the union is only as good as the people involved. If you have any questions or would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Russell Kilday-Hicks
President, CSUEU Chapter 305
415-338-3008 • rkilhick@sfsu.edu

Things I didn’t like about our recent statewide officer elections

Opinion by Russell Kilday-Hicks

My union, CSUEU recently held statewide officer elections. I was a candidate for VP For Organizing. I came in second out of a field of three. The incumbent was retiring her post. Here are a few thoughts on the experience.

Losing. I have no one to blame but myself, of course. It’s still not pleasant. We should honor all our candidates, winners and losers alike, because it’s not easy to put yourself in front of everyone like that. A close race, in some ways, is easier to take. As hard as losing is, it hurts even more to get really low numbers. We ought to have an after-election party or at least a consolation prize. How about a hot tub and massage for the losers to facilitate their ego-healing work? (Putting on my best Bob Barker voice: “Thank you for participating; see the consolation prize clerk on your way out.”)

Two-minute democracy. I know long-winded, repetitive political speeches can be painful to sit through but who decided the two-minute rule on our speeches? It’s the first exposure to many new people; maybe we should rethink this. Even three minutes is an industry standard, so to speak. Can’t we at least do that? Ideally we need a question and answer period or a candidate’s forum. Hylah and I tried to set that up but at least all the other declared candidates weren’t interested. We should seriously think about this. Of course, this doesn’t address nominations from the floor. Last minute, real or pretend spontaneous, stealth candidates don’t have to have their vision and stances questioned.

Relatively un-informed voters. It’s not their fault, really. Voters never exposed to a CSUEU board meeting are choosing the board leaders. We need to fix this one, and we can. We should be pod-casting and or web-casting our board meetings (the open sessions) around the state so that voters and the people they represent can get a sense of who does and doesn’t pay attention, who raises valid points, and who uses the rules to make us all suffer for our sins (and sometimes wish this guy Roberts be drawn and quartered for his sins).

Privileging those with time. Women especially should be sensitive to this one. Many of us sacrifice not only our careers but compromise our family lives to be union activists. Why should those with no diapers to change or partner to bargain for union time with get all the credit for being so involved? For example: The election was on my younger son’s birthday. For example: People said to me about Joseph: how can someone running for VP For Organizing not go to the organizing training? Well, easy. Because he had a family obligation that weekend and sent an apology out to the chapter presidents explaining why he wasn’t there. Some of us have to make hard choices like these all the time. Pay attention sometimes to the time stamp on activist’s e-mail messages; many of us are giving up sleep to do this work. I heard I lost points for not being at the CSEA Women’s Conference. Was it known that I was home with a wife who had major surgery that Friday? (BTW – I did attend the CSEA Committee on the Future the following Monday and Tuesday, sending my wife to her parents for care and my son to his aunt’s. I chose to do that because that work is so crucial to avoid the coming GC train wreck. My partner wasn’t happy but she’s a good sport most of the time and if there was some kind of award for playing the best supportive role, she would surely be in the running.) CSU Division President Pauline Robinson was very welcoming to family coming to our meetings. I haven’t heard this brought up recently and we should. Don’t we want workplaces—including the volunteer union workplace—to be family friendly?

Who shows up — who doesn’t. This is a variation on the item above. They do say that democracy is run by those who show up. We should examine why some people don’t make it to our election. Maybe there are a few simple fixes to getting more people in the room, for example: changing the election time to during the spring semester rather than during the summer when people take vacation time off, and adding daycare so those with children are welcome to participate.

Making a mockery of our elections. Some of us take elections very seriously, others not so, it seems. For some it’s a game with loose and fast rules. Push it as far as it will go. Does this serve democracy well? Some people win elections and some lose. It’s a fact of life. When it’s reduced to a game, we all lose.

Preparing. I thought long and hard about whether I was ready to serve, what makes a good leader (good_leaders.pdf). The truth be told I’m already serving my union, I just wanted to make it more visible and certainly thought I could communicate better from the inside. And I’ve been struggling asking for release time, knowing that we were running out and entirely frustrated that my work on communications wasn’t getting enough support from our union and from myself. I could say forget it. How could they not know what I’ve done already? But it was up to me to tell you. Not making excuses but it been a hard year for me so far. In addition to my wife having health issues my father just died a few weeks before the election and I had a home crisis I had to deal with earlier in the year. And, I put a lot of energy into my chapter to grow by 100 members to get another GC delegate (and came up short, damn it). Plus I read a book on my vacation in Europe (that Pat gave me), “Building More Effective Unions.” Watch for a review in a future University Employee newsletter. I also took Brian Young’s Chapter Development plan and reworked it to be more comprehensive (chap_develop_plan07.pdf). My vision for organizing (one part of the VP job, see below) was to push the Healthy Chapter concept, meaning if you have a healthy chapter (twelve benchmarks) then organizing would be a breeze (Org_Com_plan.pdf).

Misleading title. The name of the office is “Vice President for Organizing” but this is misleading. It should be just plain old vice president because that is what the duties amount to. Truth be told, everything we do is organizing, so why don’t we call it VP for Everything? Here is a list of what our president and vice president do for us (thanks to Hylah):

All statewide offices take an enormous commitment of time and energy, not to mention a good measure of acumen in human relations and negotiating. There are three main fronts, and they are all on full boil, and they all have significant consequences for CSUEU: our relationship with SEIU, our involvement in CSEA, and our continuing efforts to build CSUEU leadership and programs on an impossibly small budget. The four statewide officers are heavily involved in all these things, as well as keeping up with the day-to-day communications and overall management duties.

In addition to the 3 BOD meetings the CSUEU holds each year, there are 3 CSEA BOD meetings per year, and SEIU state council meetings about every other month. There are also CSU Board of Trustees meetings 8 times a year (3 day meetings). There are also CSUEU executive committee meetings (about 8 per year) and CSEA executive board meetings. With the change in the CSEA board after this GC there will be a greater level of commitment and consultation among the affiliates within CSEA.

Then there are the CSEA committee and the other affiliate board meetings (Local 1000, Retirees, Supervisors), which it is a very good idea for the CSUEU president to attend whenever humanly possible, to protect CSUEU’s interests and assure CSEA continues to build and grow.

And, there are the CSUEU committee meetings, at which the president plays a significant role.

The two officers upon which these essential duties fall are the president and vice president for organizing, with the other two CSUEU vice presidents are required to attend meetings as backup (all but the CSEA executive committee, for the president only).

Of course, you are not a potted plant at these meetings. This is the driver’s seat, and as a statewide officer you are responsible for protecting CSUEU’s interests and enhancing our position (requiring lots of prep time and thinking on your feet). That would be great if everyone would just listen to you and cooperate! But alas, it’s messy, and people don’t always behave on the up and up. Occasionally you come across truly power-driven individuals who, believe it or not, do not have the American labor movement at the center of their hearts.

And then you have your own people to deal with, who can sometimes perform at less than the optimum, just not be up to the task or too busy with their lives to get done what they committed to. But because you are a statewide officer you will be required to pick up the slack and remain entirely civil about it. You will be invited to all kinds of chapter meetings and will be expected to know everything because that is what they expect. You will be something of a traveling complaint department, but you will also be amazed and renewed at the commitment and solidarity of the rank and file.

You will be occasionally unhappy with staff and when you try to do something about that you will find it is more complicated than you thought and more time consuming. Meanwhile, you will get blamed for not moving faster. Faster and more efficiently, although a true efficiency analysis would find weak links over which you can exercise almost no control. People will not always understand that you are doing your best, and they certainly don’t want to hear this. Again, you will need to remain loving and civil and creative and tactful.

If there is bargaining going on for us in CSUEU or in CSEA, the CSUEU president will be at the table, and these are sessions involving several days, preceded by several days of prep time. There will, I predict, be layoffs, and the president is at all of those tables as well.

The president is also expected to testify in the legislature and meet with elected officials on a regular basis, understand the California budget process, the legislative process, stay abreast of California politics, and lobby like crazy for our bills and our interests. At the CSU board of trustees the president makes two public speeches every session to the board and all CSU presidents and all vice chancellors and the attendees. After all these fun and games there is a meeting of the presidents, officers and administrators of all the CSU labor unions, at which there is a fine dance of information sharing — but not too much information sharing — and probing for shared ground.

And then! And then there is the governor and are our other enemies who may very well decide to mount another anti-union, anti-public employee attack or go after our pensions again. That will take enormous effort, again, and require a full commitment while assuring the CSUEU remains strong and we don’t drop the other balls that we need to keep in the air.

Oh yeah. If you are a vice president, you get to work your state job while you are trying to do all this other stuff. You will get your expenses reimbursed, but not always as timely as you would like. If you don’t keep up with your expense claims you will find yourself in a hazy financial situation, so keep good records and turn your claims in immediately. Despite your best efforts, you will spend money, time (weekends for weeks on end), and vacation time that you did not anticipate. You will find that you will not want to get away from it all, because it’s like driving the original 20 mule team, meaning you are handling 20 reins and you won’t dare let go.

Not many people can handle it. Some step forward and find themselves in over their head. We should consider the big picture because things will change in the next two years, internally and externally, and this creates new challenges. In California, things will get worse. Budget. Health care. CalPERS attacks. The impact on your friends and family is incalculable. It takes a level of selfishness to voluntarily neglect your friends and family, and you will end up always feeling that either the union responsibilities or your friends and family, by turns, are being short-changed.

Finally, when all is said and done, I will continue to support our statewide leaders and struggle to represent my members and build my chapter, and, if I think my ego can handle it, possibly run again for statewide office. Thanks for your continued participation in union democracy.

Peace.

CSUEU and SEIU, a dialogue

My union, CSUEU, is facing some important decisions about its future. One such decision involves our relationship with our international affiliate SEIU. Two candidates in the upcoming statewide leadership election put together a few questions and answers on this issue to start a dialogue that they felt had been inadequate to date. Two other leaders responded. The original authors answered one of the responders. I’ve posted the entire exchange below, starting with the original.

First post:

CSUEU and SEIU
By CSEA Vice President Hylah Jacques, candidate for CSUEU President, and
SF State Chapter 305 President and Statewide Communication Committee Chair Russell Kilday-Hicks, candidate for CSUEU Vice President for Organizing

Affiliation with an international: What’s in it for us?
Most local labor unions are associated in some way with a larger group. As the labor movement evolved during the 20th century, it was a significant factor in building labor power to make critical gains and changes. Today it is still important, giving locals a powerful and united voice in important issues that affect us all: federal legislation and politics, protecting Medicare and social security, extending rights and protections to fellow workers in low-wage and under-represented sectors, working for social change and economic justice. Successes in these areas make life better for our members and help extend worker rights even to those not yet unionized.

Typically, a local is expected to participate in a variety of activities at the international’s level (in addition to the usual activities and duties of the local): providing volunteers, staffing, mailing lists, etc., participating in campaigns (political, organizing, etc.), participating in member-to-member activities, and taking on state governance responsibilities (serving on committees, participating in the International’s state organization, and supporting other locals around the state).

How much of our income goes to SEIU International?
Our dues (1 percent of salary) are quite low compared to other unions (2 to 2.5 percent). CSUEU’s annual income depends on number of employees and their salaries, around $6 million this year. Our net payment to SEIU International (around $1.25 million after their rebate) is about 20 percent of our income. Presuming the SEIU rebates continue in 2008 and 2009, CSUEU will have an additional $1.8 million of income over the two years. This would be added to the $6 million for each of those two years.

Some locals pay much more. SEIU Local 1000 (California’s state civil service workers), representing about ten times more employees than us and with a higher dues structure, dedicates a net (after rebate) of about 40 percent of its annual income to SEIU International.

What do we get for that?
On the surface we don’t get much. However, there are ways we benefit. For example, SEIU played a huge role statewide in the Alliance For a Better California, the union coalition that help defeat the governor’s attack agenda on unions (the November 2005 special election). Some California unions criticized us for not being more involved in that battle, but we were, through our affiliation with SEIU. SEIU also recognizes our potential influence (along with CFA, which is SEIU Local 1983) with over 400,000 students in the state university system. Because of this, for a relatively small union we have a big voice on the SEIU State Council.

Our history with SEIU has been rocky. In protest of what was deemed as poor behavior on the part of SEIU, the CSU Division of CSEA held back the per-cap payments to SEIU, eventually amounting to millions of dollars (this effort was led by former CSEA President Perry Kenny). The settlement to that disagreement provided the capital to incorporate (in other words, we did not pay it all back). Due to this shaky history with SEIU over the last 10 years, we are just now building a relationship with them.
In the past few years we have opted to maintain a fairly low profile, in part because we wanted to focus on building the CSUEU and accomplishing some important organizational changes with CSEA (incorporation and affiliation). SEIU International has not objected to our being “missing in action,” (and helped with our goals financially and by intervening with and mediating the CSEA and Local 1000 dispute) nor has CSUEU raised objections (until just recently) about a lack of services from SEIU. Services typically provided by an international include education, organizing, contract campaign assistance, and technical assistance (legal services, lobbying, etc.) We already contract with CSEA for much of our basic service needs, at cost or well below.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of maintaining the status quo?
There do not appear to be drawbacks to the current laissez faire relationship that has developed. While SEIU does occasionally pressure us to conform more, participate more, or pay them more, they have not pressed the issue. SEIU may prefer to keep a higher-education local in the fold and be willing to endure our idiosyncratic behavior. CFA, another SEIU affiliate, enjoys much the same relationship, although they pay more to the international and have donated additional resources (significant money and staff) to SEIU campaigns, such as the anti-76 campaign of 2005. It does not seem advisable to pick a fight where none exists, especially with an international.

Are we affiliated with other labor entities? If so, what have they done for us lately?
Since affiliations typically cost money and incur obligations and duties, we have not formed very many. However, we do have a longstanding relationship with CSEA, of which we are an affiliate. Formerly, we were one of four divisions of CSEA. Through a service agreement with them we enjoy business, HR, accounting, printing, legal, lobbying, office space, and other resources. This affiliation gives us complete control over our resources while providing the above services at or below cost.

Didn’t SEIU pull out of AFL-CIO in July 2005?
This is another reason why CSUEU has opted to maintain a fairly low profile with SEIU. Like many locals, we found ourselves suddenly unaffiliated with AFL-CIO when SEIU decided to pull out. This created two immediate problems: 1) many locals would lose their longstanding and enduring relationships with AFL’s district labor councils, to which they paid dues to belong as a way to maintain regional union strength across many unions; and 2) locals like us lost what is called “Article 20” protection, that is, the International’s promise that it will protect and defend any of its locals that another union attempts to “raid,” or take over. Such campaigns can cost millions of dollars and effectively end all other goals the local might have. Therefore, many locals felt extremely vulnerable. AFL-CIO and SEIU quickly reached an agreement on both of these issues, and recently extended that agreement through 2008. SEIU locals may continue to participate in AFL councils; and the two have agreed that they will not “raid” any of the other’s locals. Since these are the two largest internationals (AFL-CIO with 13 million members, and SEIU with 1.9 million), it is unlikely that a smaller international would try to “raid” a local. It would not be in their economic interest to do so. We are not so large or rich a target to invite a “raid,” so long as we are affiliated with an international.

Why did SEIU leave AFL-CIO and start “Change to Win” (CTW)?
Andy Stern, president of SEIU International, decided to start a new coalition, with other internationals, that is focused on organizing in order to build union strength by sectors. With him from the AFL-CIO have gone the Carpenters, United Food and Commercial Workers, LIUNA, the Teamsters, UNITE HERE, and the United Farm Workers. Stern was highly critical of AFL-CIO president John Sweeney for not doing enough around organizing and believed the loss of union density in the United States was largely due to AFL’s emphasis on electoral politics.

Observers have estimated a five-year window for Andy Stern to get the new coalition off the ground, or fail. SEIU locals may end up back in AFL-CIO after all, if the Change to Win coalition fails between now and 2010. Or, locals may find themselves in a successful new coalition. Only time will tell, and the situation should continue to be monitored, as it has been since July 2005, with an eye to our best interests.

What would happen if we decided to leave SEIU?
Proposals to disaffiliate with SEIU are not new. Warnings in the past that we will be swallowed up by the “purple machine” have not materialized. We have shown that we are in control of our relationship with SEIU. We can choose to take their support or not and use it as we see fit.

In a disaffiliation scenario, it’s likely that SEIU would expend whatever resources it would take to defeat such a move. Even though our contribution to SEIU is small compared to larger locals, the international has demonstrated that it will go to the mat if need be. Even if we were to prevail in such a fight, our resources, our activists, and our membership would be depleted from this “total war” and it would take us a few years to regroup. During that time we would be highly vulnerable and would likely join a new international for protection against being taken over. The terms of such an affiliation would likely not be anywhere near what we have now; we would not have the freedom we now enjoy to determine our level of involvement with programs and campaigns, without consequences, and failure to meet our half of an agreement with a new international could result in being taken into trusteeship by the new international. It would be difficult for us to emerge from trusteeship, since we have no real assets besides dues collection. We might well find our goals coming in second behind those of our new international.

This system of paying “protection money” to a big International doesn’t seem fair. We should be able to spend our members’ money as we see fit.
Such a sentiment is understandable, particularly if the members of a local have little interest in participating with the rest of labor or advancing the cause of social and economic justice. If a local’s members are not interested in dedicating a portion of their resources to federal and international campaigns that strengthen the labor movement, it may find itself without friends at some critical juncture in its future. The system may or may not be fair, but opting out of it is not realistic. It would be like opting out of capitalism and returning to hunting and gathering because the current economic system doesn’t seem fair. Nor can one opt out of the web that joins many thousands of labor groups together without losing the strength that that inter-relationship affords us all.

###

First response:

CSUEU and SEIU
A Measured Response

Association does not equal assimilation. Many people participate in groups like the Democratic Party or Move On to advance a progressive agenda. Or they participate in other groups like the Green Party or Amnesty International or just get involved in community activities. CSEA was one of those influential groups working for a better working life for state workers and people joined us for the same reason. But now, we have to look to SEIU to define our agenda. We no longer lead, we follow. Our brothers and sisters in “SEIU 1000” no longer see themselves as an independent union, simply another local of the fastest bloating union in America. Is this our future?

CSEA’s political action arm was called CSEAPAC – a powerful force on the state scene. It has been dismantled so that SEIU could gain our resources for its own political fights. What do state employees have to gain by cozying up to Wal-Mart? Or cutting deals with nursing homes to bypass regulation? Where are their initiatives for us, like an improved pension system or accountability for university executives? SEIU is about the next big headline and the next big organizing project – not the employees left behind in old jurisdictions paying the bills.

Should we apologize for charging our members too little? Should we apologize for returning too much value to them in terms of representation? We have not been following the SEIU model – high dues and low service – and we should be proud of that. SEIU has almost bankrupted their locals with their per capita and “unity fund.” They create a dependency on rebates in their locals to further their internal program – domination. Get out of line, lose your rebate. Along with the threat of trusteeship, this is how SEIU brings locals into line, putting their staff in control and their agenda in place.

Recently, we asked SEIU to meet its obligations under our affiliation agreement to return at least $120,000 per year in back organizing rebates. We also asked for assistance in organizing foundation and auxiliary workers. SEIU representatives flatly told us that we charge too little and give too much. They ordered us to reduce services to existing members and put the funds at SEIU’s direction. If we didn’t, they threatened to give our jurisdiction to some other SEIU local.

Only SEIU could have convinced us that we are a small union when we are one of the biggest! CSEA was a leader in state employee associations and CSUEU covers the largest higher education system in the world. SEIU has nothing like us in their other jurisdictions. It is laughable to say that we have a “big voice” on their SEIU State Council when SEIU removed us from their International Board – in violation of our affiliation agreement. We were demoted – which is a better fate than many of their locals which have been merged and eliminated.

The question that was supposed to be answered here was “What do we get for that?” For almost $2 million per year, we are given the right to the Color Purple. We get no staffing, no training, no assistance. When we ask, we are told to contribute more. Do we get services at the $3 million level? $5 million? Or are we just fueling the greed of Andy Stern and his minions for more of our dollars? CSUEU won agency fees through decades of service to state university employees – without SEIU help. Now, we face cut-backs and layoffs in staffing and program to meet our per capita set in Washington. We are not meeting our responsibility to our members when we let SEIU take their funds across the country to finance the agenda of one man.

CSEA withheld funds because SEIU violated our affiliation agreement. The plain facts are that SEIU signed a contract promising rebates, staff, training, executive positions. They failed to fulfill their side of the bargain and under the terms of that agreement, we have the right to leave. The CSEA Board of Directors began that process, only to have SEIU interfere in our internal politics to pull the plug. No one doubts that SEIU is behind the purple-shirted bullies in Civil Service Division who intimidate their opponents and rig elections. If it were not for the CDU/SEIU attack on the integrity of CSEA, we would be millions of dollars richer and thousands of members stronger today. SEIU’s response to CSEA’s disaffiliation action was to break up CSEA. We now have splintered pieces called affiliates where we once had a strong association called CSEA. SEIU uses the same sort of high-handed intervention and domination that one thinks of when we see Iraq. SEIU wants puppets, not partners, and they work with their “allies” on the inside to accomplish their goal.

“Missing in action?” Only someone who has spent the past two years on the sidelines could say we are “missing in action.” Our members and leaders have been fighting for a new contract and protecting our pensions and winning our wage increases. Our members and leaders have been working on every CSU campus to rein in bad management and improve working conditions. From that perspective, it is SEIU who is “missing in action.”

See, that’s SEIU’s trick – making us feel small because we aren’t doing enough for them. They define the relationship as “What have you done for me lately?” They don’t care about our battles, only theirs. Sacramento and Long Beach are a long way from Washington, D.C. When was the last time that Andy Stern gave our members the time he likes to give to his corporate “partners?” When we shop at Wal-Mart, should we be proud that “our” SEIU President is best buddies with the most anti-union employer on the face of the earth?

We have a high profile in the CSU and the State of California. That is where our members work and their families live. We have a high profile on college campuses and at trustee meetings – where we know who is the boss and who is the union! We don’t need SEIU trying to make us feel small so that $2 million for purple t-shirts makes us feel big. Maybe some CSUEU candidates need that sort of approval from SEIU, but the rest of us just need it from our members.

When it comes down to it, the argument is fear . Don’t fight the international – they are big and we are small. Maybe they kick us around a little, bruise our egos (and our bank accounts) but they really love us, don’t they? What would we be without them?

Grow up, folks. We don’t have to be afraid to be on our own. We were serving the state employees of California long before SEIU even showed up in California. The drawbacks of the status quo are we lose money, independence, and pride. We put the interests of a dictatorial regime in Washington above the interests of our own members. We didn’t inherit this union of ours, we built it!

We are CSEA, not related to it! SEIU wants us to leave CSEA so that they can bring us closer to them. We have our own “business, HR, accounting, printing, legal, lobbying, office space, and other resources” so why do we need them? SEIU is not involved with any of the basic operations of our union, but they collect millions of dollars while CSEA provides the services. Nice work if you can get it!

When Andy Stern decided to pull out of the AFL-CIO, there was no vote of SEIU members. Even though we risked all of the dangers listed by the authors above, no one asked us if we wanted to leave. They decide, we obey – that is the lesson here. We lack any democratic voice within SEIU and their leaders do not care.

Is this the kind of leadership some candidates offer? Will they decide to join the “unity fund” and let the members know later? Will they sign “resource agreements” that bind us to SEIU and tell us they know better what we really need? Democracy is what made CSEA. Democracy is what makes CSUEU a moral force in the CSU. If we are just another “boss” taking the dollars and giving the orders, why should CSU employees bother to listen to us?

John Sweeney hand-picked Andy Stern to serve as SEIU President when he left for the AFL-CIO. Stern repaid him by breaking up the largest and oldest union federation in the U.S. The bottom line is that Stern isn’t willing to let anyone else lead except himself. He wasn’t able to win an election in the AFL-CIO, so he took his marbles and went home. Stern is willing to gamble with our money and members to see if he can be king. And there is something hypocritical in SEIU/Stern breaking their affiliation agreement and per capita to the AFL-CIO but telling us we can’t do the same!

Fear, fear, fear! This is what to expect from people who were not around for the affiliation. We didn’t join from fear, we joined for partnership. We joined for what our two unions could do together. Now, we have to stay despite the loss of money, the breach of contract, because we face “total war.”

SEIU is incapable of taking our jurisdiction away from us. Our right to represent state university employees is decided by state university employees, not labor bosses in Washington. We earn the right to be their union by serving them, not SEIU. We are more vulnerable to losing our jurisdiction when we starve campus staff of services while increasing their dues.

SEIU has lost many, many locals because of their high-handed approach. Their sweetheart contracts and perpetual organizing leave their members angry and ready for decertification. Stern is like the captain of the Titanic trying to get people out of the lifeboats and back on the ship because “it’s so big!”

Our strength is our local leaders and our members. To fight “total war” SEIU would need to recruit its own leaders on the campuses. They would have to find one out of every three CSU employees willing to sign cards for SEIU to hold an election and then get more than one out of every two CSU employees to vote for them as representative. They would have to do this while facing interference from our own hundreds of activists, officers and stewards and thousands of members, all willing to expose SEIU for the money-grubbers they are. Who is the underdog here?

If we just give up because of some doomsday scenario invented by short-timers, then what are we saying about the union we built?

“This system of paying ‘protection money’ to a big International doesn’t seem fair. We should be able to spend our members’ money as we see fit.”

So, opponents of SEIU are hunter-gatherers who are too selfish to help others? Does SEIU have a monopoly on social and economic justice? When it comes down to it, there are only two real arguments for SEIU – “We are better than you and you should be afraid of us!”

We, the members and leaders of CSUEU, are fighters for justice and better working conditions. We, the members and leaders of CSUEU, believe that strong, democratic unions are the source of labor strength. We, the members and leaders of CSUEU, will build our union and workplace with our own efforts and our own resources.

We aren’t weak, small and afraid and we don’t need leaders who are. Thank you, candidates, for letting us know how you really feel about CSUEU and SEIU.

In Solidarity,

Jay Jimenez
President, Chapter 317
jjimenez@fullerton.edu

###

Second response:

CSUEU and SEIU
By CSUEU President Pat Gantt (posted to his blog: http://csueu4u.typepad.com/my_weblog/ )

There have been a couple of exchanges related to SEIU recently and I thought it wise to add my perspective on the issue.

The Present
The recent proposal from SEIU for a “resource agreement” certainly caused a lot of controversy. There was never any intent or action to sign or approve any document without the board approval. In fact, SEIU was told that anything would have to be taken back to the board and cautioned on the probable reaction of the board to their proposal.
Their proposal was a total response to all of our grant requests and fell shorts of the requested dollars.

My opinion is that SEIU could have done better in their response and failed to listen to myself and the other officers. I have spent some time in trying to figure out the SEIU structure and processes. It is not easy and it is a complex structure. I have tried to see where and how the CSUEU fit in to the overall structure etc. The fact that we work in a higher education setting has a unique quality about it and I observed how CFA interacted with SEIU at the state and national level.
In working with CFA, we were successful in moving some of our issues up the statewide priority list as all the SEIU locals understood the importance of CSU funding and access helped their member’s families.

History
The CSUEU inherited the affiliation agreement from CSEA when we incorporated in 2005. That original agreement is was fully transferable at that time under its terms. Initially, SEIU expressed an interest in developing a new agreement. I verbally declined and responded that it was too soon and reminded them the agreement was fully transferable and any changes require mutual consent. Given the past CSEA dispute and the fact we had never had a direct relationship with SEIU both parties needed to develop a mutual benefit relationship. In my mind, we are not there yet and no one should touch that affiliation agreement anytime soon, if ever.

In the summer of 2000, the CSU Division Council voted to suspend the per cap payments to SEIU because of a lack of representation at the May 2000 convention. SEIU did not insure that the CSU Division got the pro rata number of delegates it was entitled to as in the past. I was the second to the motion that was made by Kathryn Plunkett. The decision to withhold the per caps also included that we not spend them they be placed in an escrow account as protection if we went to arbitration and lost the issue. If arbitrated and lost, we would have to pay all the per caps back. After our motion CSEA President Perry Kenny decided to also withhold the Civil Service per caps, but for slightly different reasons. We, the CSU Division Council, settled the issue in 2004 because CSEA would not allow us to incorporate with out it the settlement, and we needed the extra funds to incorporate. We were able to keep about $3 million of the $6 million we held back.

The split between the SEIU and the AFL-CIO came as SEIU along with
LIUNA, Teamsters, Carpenters, UFW, UFCW and Unite-Here formed the Change to Win (CTW) structure. The one main difference in the split seemed that the CTW unions wanted to spend more resources on mobilizing members and grassroots politics and the AFL-CIO wanted to keep the traditional system of candidate support and not move faster to a grassroots effort.

AFL-CIO
The connection to the AFL-CIO thru SEIU to protect jurisdiction seems to be somewhat intact. The jurisdiction protection is why CSEA affiliated in the first place and the language to defend the jurisdiction is in the agreement. The Central Labor Council (The AFL-CIO political structure) relationship with the AFL-CIO is still intact as all SEIU locals in California are welcome in the councils due to a letter of understanding and mutual interest to work together on labor issues.

In the CSUEU, the decision to belong to Central Labor Councils was left up to the individual chapters as the CSU Division did not have extra funds to cover this expense. There are three chapters that pay per caps to a Central Labor Council. The current political structure has most unions working in a coalition structure on many issues either outside or in addition to that of Labor Councils. The CSUEU needs to look at every opportunity to work with other unions in any structure and decide what resources it is willing to commit to the effort.

The Future
The ongoing relationship with SEIU is still an open question. There is no swift and easy disaffiliation method. The affiliation agreement calls for a dispute resolution process. If not resolved, it can then go to arbitration and if an arbitrator finds that SEIU has violated the agreement and SEIU cannot or will not correct the violation, CSUEU can then take a vote of disaffiliation. So far, since the settlement agreement SEIU has not violated the affiliation agreement. The CSUEU is not Local 1000. Local 1000 changed their affiliation agreement after they incorporated. We incorporated as the California State University Employees Union (CSUEU) and have our autonomy. We work within the CSEA structure and with other unions to address issues of concern and mutual interest for our members. The CSUEU must have a role in the bigger labor movement and we need to decide what that role is and overall relationship with SEIU on our own terms.
This cannot happen in one meeting but must be part of an ongoing discussion of our goals, resources and planning.

###

Reply to Jay Jiminez by Russell
Reply to Jay’s response to Russell and Hylah’s “CSUEU and SEIU” statement
By Russell Kilday-Hicks

Wow Jay, it was really nice of us to provide you the ammunition you could use to assassinate us. The problem for us was we didn’t know there were character assassins waiting in the wings. The purpose of the piece was to engage a debate; one that our union needs to face because we have some important decisions to make and the discussion so far has not been adequate. Instead of being praised for our efforts we get in return exaggerated claims of what we meant and the fallacious argument called “straw man,” where the attacker conveniently creates a fake person (in this case, two persons) that is easily knocked to the ground. I’m reminded of a Paul Simon lyric, “All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” (The Boxer).

First I want to thank you for engaging the debate. Like I said, this is what our union needs. Now I would like to respectfully ask that from here on it be a debate over the very real issues we are facing so that we can make informed decisions about our future. Let’s make sure we are talking to each other and not at each other. Really listening always carries with it the possibility that you might be changed by what you hear. And I would challenge us all to keep that in mind as we proceed.

Second, we are all in the room because we care. Trying to characterize some as “more caring” or righteous than others is a bullying tactic that we should watch out for. We are not Local 1000 and I hope to god we never become them. We all volunteer our time to help our cause and that should never be disrespected.

Third, you don’t necessarily have to have a stronger argument to win a debate; sometimes you just have to place the seed of doubt. Claiming that the statewide leaders were about to sign a secret deal with SEIU was just such a tactic. Pat states on his website: “There was never any intent or action to sign or approve any document without the board approval.” I even got an alarmed call from an LRR at the time and I said that I would look into it but I don’t think it’s possible for them to sign an agreement the board hasn’t approved. My instincts were correct. Did a retraction go out to clear this up? (Maybe I missed that e-mail when I was in Europe.) Further, I heard it said that many if not all of the issues raised on the phone conference with SEIU representative Greg Pullman were a rehash of what the board brought up in their meetings with Pullman. Does that sound like a secret coup about to happen? Clearly, someone here is not listening.

It’s obvious from your “measured” response that you think little of Andy Stern and his leadership of SEIU. Did it occur to you that we might be in agreement on this? You seem to be advocating leaving SEIU because of this distrust of Stern. What is the justification given? Because Stern took over other locals? He did, but he can’t do that to us, at least not unilaterally. Is it because Stern alone seems to be setting the agenda? Maybe he has for other unions, but he can’t do that to us — unless we let him. No one I ever spoke to in our union has advocated such a thing. But the seed of doubt has been planted …

You write that “association does not imply assimilation,” and neither do we. We do not have to “look to SEIU to define our agenda” and we certainly haven’t been, accomplishing quite a lot in our first few years of incorporation, like you said, without much help from SEIU (except the finances to incorporate in the first place, even if it was forced out of them). For example, the SFSU Foundation has been a thorn in my side on my campus since I’ve been involved in our union, with their non-union workforce right under our noses. I learned of a bargaining unit employee who was fired from his temporary job and re-hired by the foundation doing essentially the same work but without union protections and benefits. We tried filing a ULP but that failed. Pullman said during the phone conference that it doesn’t make sense for us to not organize these workers. Is this SEIU setting the agenda? Considering our affiliation agreement for a moment, if we state we aren’t interested in these workers we give up jurisdiction because our agreement gives us rights to state employees only, but these workers are technically private. (I agree it would be outrageous for SEIU organize them, but do you honestly believe they would even try? I don’t.) I believe that an “external” campaign, if done correctly will have a positive affect on our “internal” numbers as well (and Pullman states in the 5/25/07 memo to us that the money is “for you to use to increase your membership internally” as well as to organize the foundation workers). Training and empowering activists is a good thing, no matter what their focus.

We need to get beyond the constraints of a service model and open up our chapters to the wider world, not just the foundations but the union movement, not even just the union movement but the civil rights movement for all workers. What’s stopping us from using our resources, thrown back at us from SEIU, to accomplish this? Is it their attitude of arrogance towards us, or maybe it’s our attitude of arrogance towards them?

You refer to the affiliation agreement with SEIU and Article 10.4, the “up to” $10,000 a month for organizing. It says, “SEIU shall negotiate annually” with us. To do that you have to meet. To do that you have to have a relationship with them. Yet when our executive officers did just that they were attacked. As communication chair I agree the process needs to be communicated better, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater, let’s build a better union together. Article 11 also promises resources that SEIU has never delivered on. But to get them you need to have a relationship. Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse?

Should we be getting more from SEIU? Absolutely! But isn’t it also naive to think that there will be no strings? After all, they are SEIU (under Stern). But part of the problem here is what is called “self-fulfilling prophesy” where you say SEIU is undemocratic (and no doubt they have been) because we don’t have national representation, yet we were not “members in good standing” to be eligible for that because we were holding back our per-cap payments. Perry Kenny made sure we only heard about SEIU what he wanted us to hear, and he dragged us into his war with Civil Service. He made sure we had no relationship with SEIU, and now you seem to be advocating continuing the same thing. Will we get SEIU national representation in the near future? Maybe that depends on the relationship we create with them. Do you really care or is it far more important to make political points? And I’m confused over which policy is coming out of fear: the idea that we have to disaffiliate because of what they may do to us or the idea that we have to stay with them because of what they may do to us. Let’s do what we need to do and let the chips fall where they may.

The bottom line: SEIU is not Andy Stern. It is much more than that. Our piece was not a defense of Stern. Read it again. It was a little background and if anything an argument for acting with our eyes open. You claim some leaders are frozen in fear of what Andy Stern will do to us. But that is just nonsense. If it makes sense for us to leave SEIU, then tally ho! I just want our motives and goals to be clear and attainable, and I believe that our mission is much larger than decent raises and benefits for our represented employees (as important as they are) because we will never get them in isolation without a strong civil rights/union movement. If the only alternative to Stern is withdrawing from the social justice movement then, and I think you would agree Jay, count me out. If there are better alternatives to staying and working within SEIU, then count me in. I haven’t heard what they might be just yet but my ears are open. Do we have the resources to disaffiliate? Do we know where we are going afterward? Where will it lead?

As for Stern, hatred can be just as destructive an emotion as fear. Actually, sometimes you can find hatred’s roots in fear. (Notice I didn’t say that your anger is rooted in fear. Your distrust of Stern is well justified, but decisions made out of anger are rarely good ones). Let’s work together to turn our passion in a positive direction, whatever path that might be.

CSEA is changing; it can never be what it was. While it’s true that CSUEU may not be a good fit for SEIU we do need to take stock of where we are right now. (SEIU is playing marriage counselor to stop the “war of the roses” waged within CSEA for far too long; we have to give them some credit for that. If they fail, GC will be a continuation of the strife -– bring your boxing gloves. If they succeed, it may be the most harmonious GC we’ve seen in many yeas.)

We all distrust Stern and SEIU, but for the sake of our union, please don’t “disregard the rest.” Vilifying Stern will not help us make clear choices. If we are strong enough, maybe we can get SEIU to play on our terms. Attacking each other will certainly prevent us from having the strength to pull that off. We need all our talents pulling together, and like Pat said, that’s what a union is.

There is a lot more to discuss. Let’s get started.

Thanks brother Jay. Talk to you soon.

###

Response to Jay from Hylah

Dear J –

Loved the high dudgeon, bro. Like any unionista worth her salt, I have to admire the passion. But I’m not sucked in. I’m onto facts, and you laid out several about SEIU that I would not disagree with. I could probably add a few originals of my own. (And BTW, all unionistas should read Wypijewski on SEIU.) Yes, it is, as they say, a “dangerous neighborhood,” as you have so breathlessly observed of late. And welcome to it.

The last I heard from you about SEIU was almost two years ago to the day, when you asked me over lunch at CSU-LA what we, CSUEU, were doing about the SEIU split from AFL-CIO and our Article 20 protection going out the window. “We’re in a ‘wait and see’ mode,” I said, “and if it gets choppy we’ll bail.” I was skeptical that SEIU could pull it off, and so were you. Neither of us liked being yanked from AFL-CIO, with whom we would have preferred having the international link, despite the bushel of cold hard facts that could be laid out against AFL too.

Well, two years later I see we remain skeptical. But our respective views on how to position ourselves in the matter seem to have diverged. First I believe we need to acknowledge what has changed, and any benefit that has accrued from our relationship, such as it is, with SEIU.

We actually struck a deal with SEIU and recovered $3 million of the six we owed, legitimately, in back per caps we had not paid for years. (Yes, we got sucked into CSEA prez Perry Kenny’s pissing match years ago, I know you’ll recall.) This deal made it possible for us to incorporate and move from division to affiliate status and gain control over our resources. Oh yeah. Before you start going all gooey about the good old days when we were a division of CSEA? I want to warn you that this mesmerizing highwire of historical revisionism, less than 24 months out of CSEA hell, is just not going to fly.

The good ole days…

We were for many years, the poor, red-headed stepchildren of CSEA, picking Granny’s apron pocket (the Retirees) at every opportunity, extending the empty porridge bowl to Kenny, et al., while deftly grabbing for the gold watch. We had to. We had no resources to speak of, and the little we had was all controlled by CSEA. We lived by our wits to even minimally meet our goals, and we tried to stay out of the crossfire between the civil service division and the CSEA goon squad (little better than Pinkerton’s hunting down miners if you read any of the 2003 court papers, which is why courts to this day perceive CSEA as coming in with unclean hands, no matter who has done what to whom since 2003). And while you could hardly point to the civil service division (Local 1000 today) as well scrubbed heroes, neither could you blame them for digging their way out of the mineshaft of doom via a reform movement. (Sadly, they proved, post-GC 2003, they could descry but not lead.)

Lately, people in CSUEU and CSEA leadership (myself included) have taken the bold decision to get to know these cranky neighbors of ours, the so-called big dogs of SEIU. They do bite, but they will give you ample warning first. (Usually.) I recommend descending from your perch on the sunporch. The neighborhood may indeed be dangerous –- and I’ve got the bite marks to prove it -– but that’s nothing compared to Keith “Atilla” Richman cresting the horizon again.

Yes, he is back, for another attack on our pensions. Apparently we are fresh out of defenseless Orange Counties to throw in his path because he is not slowing down, and he’s got the crazy notion that CalPERS will be easy to pick off. I wonder what might have given him that impression ….

I don’t know about you, Jay, but 50 years hence when our union brethren look back on what we did at this moment, I don’t want them to anguish that we got distracted, that we turned inward, lost our courage for the real fight, locked our door against the dangers of the neighborhood and the world and picked a false fight inside the house of labor just because someone spat in our oatmeal two years ago.

Oh yeah? What about all that cash of ours SEIU is raking in, that we don’t get anything back for?

Think of it as our tithe, if you will, which goes to organizing the working poor, organizing immigrants, and building from the ground up. That’s SEIU’s plan, and who knows if they can pull it off, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I do know people succeed all the time not because they have haloes but because they take chances. SEIU has not asked us to help them organize janitors in Houston, or wear purple, or be any different than we are. Compared to what others give to this project, in time, labor, staff, and cash, it is not much.

SEIU contributed tens of millions of dollars to the California campaign against Propositions 75 and 76 in November 2005 -– Richman’s first concerted attack. If you like, you can imagine some of our realm’s coin made it into those coffers. Frankly, I did not see many of my CSUEU brethren on the front lines in 2005. In sleepy, Republican SLO, we had a huge rally –- teachers, firefighters, and nurses -– and the number of people from Chapter 316 who showed up you could literally count on one hand.

This is learned behavior, one that I would like to see us change. Back in the “good ole days” when we were the red-headed stepchildren, we could skip school with impugnity, since we weren’t expected to show up anyway. But unions -– activists and true believers -– do show up.

Clicking a canned letter at move-on-dot-org might make us feel like we did a good thing, and it is something, but it is not enough. We all need to do more, especially around our pensions and health care. We cannot afford to assume others will fight for us, others will raise the mega-cash through special assessments (“hey –- we po”) others will go to the rally, let alone organize it. So, think of that per-caps money as the price of that ticket to go home at 5 p.m. rather than freeze your patootie at a rally. It’s the price of keeping your door locked and maintaining your isolationist perch in a dangerous neighborhood full of thieving pirate big labor. It’s the price of sloth, which has no place, at this moment in any union’s history.

The SEIU people I know have all the warts you so passionately describe. And that’s not idle speculation –- I’ve seen the bad and the ugly. Still, I’ve spent the last two years combing the neighborhood for some scrap of common ground where we could stand and face a common enemy together, warts and all. Like the family you do not “choose,” they are our brothers.

You want to pick a fight with SEIU? I suggest you wait ’til we deal with Richman.

Now, let’s compare SEIU with AFL-CIO, the other darling of your diatribe. I won’t even bring up the AFL’s support of the Vietnam war. I’ll stay with recent history, like within the last year. It’s bad enough the Democratic leadership sold us short with the November ’06 bond measures that they got in bed with the governator to promote. (Rather reminiscent of that tawdry 1972 spectacle, of George Meany tucking Richard Nixon in, which got Meany nothing for his trouble. But I digress.)

These bonds do major damage to the state general fund, for 30 years (the life of a bond), which threatens our jobs and raises over that whole span of time. But AFL supported the bonds, because it meant short-term jobs for them. Never mind us in higher education, or in civil service, facing a governor bent on starving the beast to justify contracting out, never mind hungry CalWorks kids, the homeless, rehab programs, mental health services, or any health and human services -– we all depend on the general fund. The SEIU State Council was the only labor entity, to my knowledge, that opposed those bond measures. Thirty years is a long time to fight with hungry first-graders and the homeless over the budget dust left on the floor.

It’s not a perfect world, nor even “a bit more perfect” union. We all have our warts, scars, our failures to measure up, to live the utopian ideal. Even the big grand-daddy who spawned us all, the International Workingman’s Association, had a notoriously tough time getting along, but they managed to shut down continental Europe on a regular basis despite their differences. If you want the good ole days, go there. The underside of labor has not changed much, sad but true. The main difference is, people are not (here in sunny California, anyway) getting shot for joining a picket line. Or shot for not showing up.

Bottom line: no yellow brick road. And no Mr. Rogers either. But welcome to the neighborhood anyhow — it belongs to us all. I see two choices: we could try walking off the muddy field and going our isolationist way (with no guarantee of making it very far), or we could stay in the game and see how far up the field we can advance those principles of union democracy and labor power that many of us in CSUEU cherish. I’ll take the latter: we are the red-headed underdogs, after all -– we know how to do this.

See you soon –-

Hylah
###

Our union, your vote

By Russell Kilday-Hicks

Our union, CSUEU, and the CSU recently bargained and ratified a renewed three-year contract. The ratification process includes approval by union members. To vote — to have your voice heard either for or against the Tentative Agreement (TA) — you must be a union member. I’ve been asked why that is? Why don’t non-members get a vote too because the contract affects all employees in the workplace in the bargaining units we represent?

Many years ago a majority of workers in the CSU voted (by bargaining unit) to have statewide union representation by CSEA. A majority (by bargaining unit) can vote the union out at any time. The limits of union power or effectiveness come in three ways: weaknesses in federal and state labor law itself, weaknesses in the individual volunteers who step forward to do the work (we are all fallible, after all), and the weakness in general that stems from the employees choosing to not be involved at least minimally by becoming a member, or going beyond that by volunteering their time to the union for the good of all. This institution is just like all democratic entities — it’s only as strong or as good as the people involved. Unions come with responsibilities as well as benefits.

Let me draw a parallel. A long time ago our country struggled to become a democracy. Oh, that is what we conveniently call it but it’s really a partially democratic, representative republic (one of my favorite political scientists calls it “democracy for the few”). This means that minimally we elect leaders who then represent us. As a citizen or resident of this country you can chose your level of participation in some ways, but that does not exclude you from the responsibilities of residence or citizenship in other ways. (It’s sad that so many take those responsibilities so lightly — not just because of the struggle to get where we are today and the possibility of losing what we have, but also our country would be so much better if more people participated in its governance — in voting, yes, but so much more than that is desperately needed.) Whether you register to vote or not you still have to follow the laws that the elected representatives make, including paying taxes. You cannot refuse to follow the laws because you don’t believe in our form of government. So why follow laws like driving on the correct side of the street or paying taxes? Well, if you don’t, there are consequences.

Of course at least some of the founders, like Jefferson (and later leaders like Thoreau, Twain, etc.), believed that it is our responsibility to not follow an unjust law, as in civil disobedience. Democracy is sometimes called “the tyranny of the majority” for good reason. Occasionally the majority is indeed wrongheaded. But there are consequences for standing up for what you believe is the right thing to do. That may be how you deal with individual laws, while supporting the overall structure: a government by the people, for the people.

On the other hand, you can opt out, but that doesn’t stop the country from functioning without you. If you choose to not participate in electing our representatives then you will be voluntarily disempowering yourself. That is a political choice, but like the French saying: If you don’t do politics, politics will be done to you — there is no real way out. A friend of mine said the other day that he is so much more political than he used to be. I had to correct him. He may be more informed and involved but being uninformed and uninvolved is just as political. Like the historian Howard Zinn says: “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” History will go on with or without you so you may as well participate.

This brings us back to the union. You can choose to work for the CSU system but if you don’t become a member of the union (by actively filling out a membership card) then you are choosing to not participate in the governance of the workplace. However, you still have to pay your taxes (in this case, the “fair share” fees that go to fund bargaining and enforcing the contract that we all work under) and follow the rules laid out in the contract with the CSU. If the elected union leaders decide to do something horrible the remedy is to participate and tell them to change it — or change that leadership. You can say, “I don’t agree with unions so I won’t get involved,” but that really doesn’t change the fact that our workplace is a union environment. Union law developed over many years of struggle, starting in earnest in the U.S. in the mid-1800s. Abraham Lincoln recognized the importance of unions in the lives of workers and wrote at the time that anyone who didn’t support unions was a “dangerous fool” and “un-American.” Unions have what is called “exclusive representation” in the workplace, meaning there cannot be competing organizations once a union is voted in. With that comes the “duty of representation,” which means that member or not, if the contract is violated the employee can expect help from the union, if her or she asks for help and is willing to work on his or her own behalf as well. Unionism at its best looks out for the rights of all workers (social justice unionism). At its worst, unionism keeps to “bread and butter” issues, just taking care of its own, even to the extent of competing against other unions (business unionism).

I hope I’ve convinced you that the choice not to participate is a political choice. If you don’t like your government you can work to change it. If you don’t like the union, change it.

Here are some of the common reasons for not joining that I’ve come across:
• Partisan politics: Some are turned off by the union’s partisanship (is there any doubt how we feel about Arnold?). But I, personally, am not a hardcore Democrat. What I am is hardcore worker’s rights and small “d” believer in democracy. If the Republicans woke up tomorrow and decided that the key to the nation’s wealth is labor (“Honest Abe” Lincoln was a Republican) and became the great defender of workers and their families, then I would support that. The reality is the Democrats often fall far short too. On the other hand, Arnold openly says he hates unions. For me, that is like saying you hate democracy. He doesn’t say he hates corporations, but corporate structure and the way they operate are inherently undemocratic. (For more, read “Gangs Of America, the Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy” by Ted Nace. Download it for free at www.gangsofamerica.com.) Before every election there is a debate within the union on who to oppose and support. If you disagree with the choices, make your case and win people over to your side.

• “I’m not a joiner”: That may be, but whether you join or not you are making a statement. If you don’t join, the CSU takes that as saying: “I’m fine with the way things are, with the way the CSU treats me and my coworkers.” Union activists have heard from CSU lawyers and HR directors across the bargaining table for years that more than half of the employees we represent do not belong to the union so do not support our proposals. This is changing, due to the “forced fees” providing the resources to more effectively serve the workers and the recent changes in leadership. This has increased membership across the state significantly. But at just barely 50 percent, we are not anywhere where we should be. Does joining say you agree with everything the union does? Well, does registering to vote say you agree with everything the government does? Hardly. Joining gives you a vote to elect leaders and approve or disapprove proposed contracts. You should come to a statewide meeting some time and watch the disagreements. We try to act with one voice, but it’s real work to get there.

• “I’m against forced unionism, or forced fees”: The National Right To Work Foundation, a group funded by all the major corporations, thinks you are being forced to be in a union and forced to pay fees. But don’t think for a minute they have the worker’s interests in mind. (I call them the National Right To Be Fired Foundation.) There are also groups (also funded by major corporations) who believe that all taxes are evil too and have been effectively working (a.k.a. the “Reagan Revolution”) to lessen their share, even though those corporations benefit from the infrastructure taxes pay for as well (a.k.a. “corporate welfare”). Corporations fund the NRTW because it is in their interests to keep unions weak and wasting resources (as in your dues or fees) in court battles. Individual employees have a hard time fighting for employee rights by themselves. Without a union contract, private-sector employees do not even enjoy permanency. Unions provide a collective voice and protection. But without the money to pay the bills, they can’t do the job. Would we have roads or schools or hospitals if taxes were voluntary? Taxes (and union fees) guarantee that our government (and our union) has the resources to do the job we want them to do for the good of society.

• What does the union do anyway?: One of the problems with unionism is that much of the work is done behind the scenes. If you come to the union with a workplace issue and a trained steward takes your case, that representation is confidential. We also get a bad rap, much like lawyers, because we have to defend everyone. One of the funding principles of this nation is that everyone deserves his or her day in court. Duty of representation means we have a legal obligation to represent anyone who comes forward, whether we like that person or not, whether we think that person is a good employee or not. The union also acts on behalf of CSU employees in Sacramento. Honestly, if we are funded by the state, who in his or her right mind would deny us the ability to lobby on our own behalf? Well, Arnold for one, like he tried to do with a ballot proposition in 2005 (that were defeated by a collective union effort in the state). As we join forces with faculty and students to advocate for the CSU, we are benefiting not only you in the workplace but California as a whole. Every dollar invested in a healthy CSU comes back to California many times over.

This is your organization. Join us!

Anti-war talk: Support both peace and the troops

This is a short speech I was scheduled to deliver in Fremont at a rally organized through MoveOn.org in support of California Congressman Pete Stark in his efforts to stop the nonsense in Iraq. Unfortunately, I never made it there due to a fire on the train system (BART). I post it here anyway.

My 22-year-old son Matthew is currently somewhere north of Baghdad, Iraq. He joined the Army National Guard out of high school right after the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedy. He said he wanted to defend his country and he wanted money for college. I’m sure he is not getting what he expected right now. Sadly, he is not defending his country but the gluttony, arrogance, and insanity of our leaders, defending what they call “The American Way of Life.” Why must our “way of life” be a way of death for the world? Why are they sending our sons and daughters to kill in our name instead of to college?

Anti-war veteran Liam Madden, also 22 years old, co-founder of the “Congressional Appeal for Redress,” signed by 1,000 active military to end the occupation of Iraq, was in the Bay Area recently. He asked us to remember how many times we were asked growing up what we wanted to be. He said to compare that with how many times you were asked what kind of world do you want to live in when you grow up. I asked my six-year-old son that question and he said: “A world of peace where the only guns are toy guns.”

I ask you to make the connections between the occupation of not only Iraq but the entire world (with over 700 U.S. military bases and growing) and the state of our wealthy nation here at home. The cost of living goes up while wages stagnate. Meanwhile, oil companies hit record profits. The tragedy of our times is that we squander our national wealth while human needs go wanting.

They tell us we are bringing freedom and democracy to the world, supposedly spreading the American Dream. But that is a lie. It’s time to expand that dream. Dream a better world, where the guns only shoot human kindness in the minds of six year olds.

Democracy is majority rule by the demos, the people. Right now the majority of the American people are against this nation-building project in the Middle East, yet it continues in our name. And it will continue until we do our own surge into the streets. It will not stop until we escalate our forces to support both our troops and a peaceful world. Bring my son home today.

Anti-war talk: Only toy guns

Speech delivered at an anti-war rally at SF State on Feb. 15, in support of the student strikes happening on other campuses in the country.

I’m Russell Kilday-Hicks, I work and go to school here at SF State.

My 22-year-old son Matthew is currently in his fourth month of a one-year tour somewhere north of Baghdad, Iraq. He joined the National Guard out of high school right after the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedy. He said he wanted to defend his country and he wanted money for college. I’m sure he is not getting what he expected right now. Sadly, he is not defending his country but the gluttony, arrogance, and insanity of our leaders, something you are all familiar with, what they call “The American Way of Life.” I ask you, why does our way of life have to be a way of death for the world? Why are they sending our sons and daughters to kill in our name instead of to college?

Anti-war veteran Liam Madden, also 22, was here last week. He asked us to remember how many times we were asked growing up what we wanted to be. He said to compare that with how many times you were asked what kind of world do you want to live in when you grow up. Well, I asked my six-year-old son that question and he replied: “A world where the only guns are toy guns.”

I ask you to make the connections between the occupation of Iraq and the world (with over 700 U.S. military bases and growing) and your tuition increases (up nearly 80 percent in the last few years with another 10 percent increase in the governor’s budget proposal); make the connections between the way faculty and staff are treated in the CSU system and the quality of the education found here — and then think about the reason you are going to college. You are here to better yourselves, to get a good job when you graduate, but I hope you come away with a much larger dream than that. Dream a better world, where the guns shoot human kindness in the minds of six year olds.

In the words of my younger son’s favorite singer, hip-hop artist Michael Franti: “You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb it into peace.” Thank you.

Anti-war talk: Support the troops

2/8/07, San Francisco State University, given as part of a panel in the Appeal For Redress tour organized by World Can’t Wait and sponsored by the SF Students Against War

I am Russell Kilday-Hicks, an information technology consultant working at SF State in the Capital Planning, Design and Construction department. I am also chapter president of the second-largest staff union on campus after the faculty, the California State University Employees Union (CSUEU/SEIU 2579). My son Matthew Kilday is currently serving as a military policeman in the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Like most Bush speeches, I start this tale with 9-11-2001. My son Matthew was 17 (now 22, almost 23) when the terror supposedly all began in the neo-con fairy tale version soon to be a major animated film by Disney, no doubt. He was in high school in a conservative, rural Connecticut town (an old money town, you know, where our president comes from before oil made him a Texan). He was enticed with the “early enlistment buddy system” (where you can go through boot camp with your best friend from Podunk high; I don’t know if they are together still or not). He said he was also looking for help with college, which I suspect was intended as a slight against me for not being able to offer him a fully funded college ride on my state salary. I did offer for him to come here because as a CSU employee he can attend the CSU for half price but I guess that wasn’t enough of a draw and besides there was a world, or at least a country to save. By the way, this money-for-college program is not like the GI bill under which my father went to school following WWII. It’s a bit of a sham as the aid you get is dependent on matching funds, so they have to pay you enough to be able to save to get the match, which they don’t do of course. I would like to see some statistics on usage of this program. Does it actually work? I have a better program. How about we stop wasting oodles of money overseas on questionable nation-building projects and adequately fund our schools and universities and provide free tuition to all qualifying youth? There is a direct connection between the war on and occupation of the world (with over 700 military bases worldwide) and your tuition increases, and the way faculty and staff are treated in the CSU system and the quality of the education found here.

The story I heard about my son signing up was that he wanted regular Army and his mother talked him into the National Guard. When he told me he signed up he said he joined the Guard so that he wouldn’t have to go overseas. My wife and I, his step-mom, said we didn’t think that was correct. When you sign up you belong to them, we said. We all like to be right, but I would rather have been proved wrong in this instance. The way the nation’s National Guard is being used is wrong on many fronts. For one, young men and women are attracted to the idea of serving the country and defending our borders in our post-9/11 climate. (For example, under this climate we are told to ask questions like: “What color are we today?” and “Look around you, are there any terrorists among us?”) If you have a poor sense of history, which, I would argue, our nation’s high schools as a whole are designed to deliver, you have little understanding of the aggressiveness of our military in “defending our national interests” outside our borders. Defending our borders was always a very small piece of that project. More importantly, the National Guard has been used as an emergency force for governor’s to save lives during real natural and often miss-named natural or other man-made disasters. Examine Katrina, and then imagine a major earthquake here in the Bay Area. Former State Treasurer Phil Angelides tried to make that point when he was running for governor but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

After boot camp he was assigned to the 144th Military Police unit, 4th platoon. After being sent to Germany for something or other, and down to Katrina, they sent him overseas to Kuwait and then over the border to Iraq. He is stationed somewhere north of Baghdad. I don’t know where exactly but I hear it is a very mixed area with all three main groups in Iraq (the Sunni and Kurdish minorities and the Shi’a majority), but according to him, it’s quiet there and he is bored most of the time. I think boredom in this case is a good thing. I don’t get to communicate much with him. He apparently has limited e-mail access. I also heard that when a soldier is killed they cut off all e-mail because they don’t want anyone notifying relatives of the deceased before the military can perform their rituals around these awful events. I do get some word through his sister and his girlfriend. But the family has warned me not to send any “subversive” materials that could get him into trouble. So I send him homemade all-organic chocolate chip cookies. Does anyone get the idea from this what a strange world we live in? He is supposedly fighting to liberate Iraq and bring them such rights as free speech but neither of us can speak freely about it. A free citizen in a supposed free country is reduced to sending Berkeley-style cookies into the war zone.

Just after he joined the Army I sent my son the Chris Hedges book “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” by a war correspondent who realized after a colleague was killed covering a conflict that he was hooked on the thrill of war and argued that nations do that too. I had a few criticisms of the book but it’s a worthwhile read to take a step back and examine some of the wider issues involved in war. I explained to Matthew that when he was little it was my job to hold his hand and teach him to look both ways before crossing the street. I said this book was just that. Apparently, he took great offense from the gesture and somehow got the idea I was trying to make him feel bad about his decision.

I had heard through other family members that he wants me to be proud of him. Of course every child wants this from his or her parent, but that’s a tough thing for me to do in this instance. I want to be proud of him but not for going overseas and holding a gun to support a lie piled on top of many supportive lies, helping to terrorize a people into being more like us instead of more like who they are. I don’t blame him for believing the lies for they run deep in our culture, and they are very persuasive. Thinking about this, I wrote an e-mail message to Matthew just after he was sent over. I told him that the toughest task facing him was to keep his humanity when all sides around him were going to try and strip it from him. I will be very proud of him if he can do that, but if he can, he will be in a very small minority in the world. I like to think that things are changing and I remain hopeful. I’m reminded of the father whose son was beheaded in Iraq and the media called him up when the supposed killer was summarily executed to ask him if he will now sleep better, and he replied: No, didn’t this man have a family too? When will the violence end? The media tried to bait him further but to his credit he kept his humanity and didn’t want anyone dying in his son’s name, even his son’s murderer. One of our great American heroes said, “The most important thing we have to do is to prove that in a time of stress we can live up to our beliefs.” That was Eleanor Roosevelt.

So Matthew has been about three months in Iraq on a one-year tour. I guess he signed for eight years and that time will be close when he comes back, But, I don’t know when he’s coming home really as things seem to be pointing to some action against Iran. His time was supposed to be eight years of “part-time” soldiering, you know, one weekend a month and a few weeks in the summer is all they require. Do you think we can sue the Army for false advertising? The “economic draft” (like my son, many American victims of the war/occupation fit the rural, small town profile) and policies like stop-loss put the lie to our supposed all-volunteer military. The military’s stop-loss policy says even though your time may be up we can keep you or bring you back because it’s a “national emergency.” Read the small print in the contract. Basically it’s now the you-are-ours-until-we-let-you-go military. We need to do all we can to support the troops in a real sense.

What are the real costs of war and why don’t we have a balance sheet implanted in the psyche of our people? Look to our history. Mother’s day started as a protest to the cost of war following our American Civil War. How many of you know this? How and why has that meaning been lost? More soldiers who served in the Vietnam/American War and returned “safely” from hell committed suicide in the ensuing years then are in the official statistic of 59 thousand dead Americans. And some are still dying today from the affects of the WMDs we used there, the chemical warfare we waged with horrors like Napalm and Agent Orange. What are the real costs of war? In business they teach about “externalities” that don’t factor into the bottom line. These are costs that someone else pays. I ask you, who is paying for this illegal and immoral sham of a war on terror? There are some among us who think he or she can escape from paying, but unless you live on another planet, there is no escape.

Remember the anti-war novel “Catch 22”? As a soldier you could be sent home if the military determined you to be insane. But if you wanted to get out that’s grounds for determining sanity, because you would have to be crazy to want to fight in a war. So you had to pretend you wanted to stay in so that they could then determine you were insane and send you home. But, if they believed you really wanted to stay in, you were a hero and they weren’t about to let a hero go home. We are trapped in the Bush Administration’s Catch 22 of “support the troops.” Watch the movie “Sir, No Sir,” a powerful documentary on the untold story of GI resistance to the Vietnam/American illegal and immoral police action (Congress never officially declared war as required by our Constitution), started with a lie called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Then support our troops for real through one of the organizations listed on my handout, and don’t fall for the nonsense that says ending this horror is somehow not supporting our troops.

The late journalist Molly Ivans suggested we leave Iraq before we kill more people than Saddam Hussein did. We are probably drawing close to his numbers; so let’s go already. Let’s end the insanity of war and the neo-colonial, corporate re-occupation of Iraq and the much larger project for American empire in the world once and for all. Do it for Matthew, and all the sons and daughters involved in all aspects of this insanity. Do it for the earth. A different world is possible, we have to believe that and we have to work for it. Peace.

Groups to support to support the troops:
GI Rights Hotline — www.girights.org, girights@objector.org
Bring Them Home Now — www.bringthemhomenow.org
Center on Conscience & War — www.nisbco.org
Iraq Veterans Against the War — www.ivaw.net
Military Families Speak Out — www.mfso.org
National Lawyers Guild/Military Law Task Force — www.nlg.org/mltf
Proyecto Guerrero Azteca — www.guerreroazteca.org
Veterans for Peace — www.veteransforpeace.org
Code Pink — www.codepink4peace.org
Gold Star Families For Peace — www.gsfp.org
Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors — www.objector.org
World Can’t Wait — http://www.worldcantwait.org
And many others …