Proud to be a state employee!

Take a moment to consider the current state of the state of our nation and California: a systemic budget crisis that promises to be ongoing for at least the next few years. Every year we go through the painful process of once again having to cut social programs, as if we aren’t doing enough. As if we didn’t have huge problems in our society: millions with no or wholly inadequate health insurance; millions unemployed and underemployed; a crumbling infrastructure; hunger in a wealthy land; universities turning away students; the young joining the military for “opportunity.” Working people are struggling like it was the 1890s.

For me, the most demoralizing aspect of all this is the disrespect afforded state employees. Follow the online paper in the state’s capital (the Sacramento Bee). Read any political story and then read the public discussion by the readers in the “Comments” space. Inevitably more than a few go off against us “lazy, privileged, pampered, etc.” state employees. We are the problem, don’t you know. Oh, and don’t forget their lousy (all too powerful) unions. I only wish we had a quarter of the power proscribed to us. Sort of like the way the Democrats are described in the media as “controlling” the state legislature. (Everyone knows that money is power. The Dems may have a majority but in this state it takes two thirds to control the money, so who has the power? Oh, and why don’t we have a budget yet?)

We can examine why the need for a scapegoat. After all, it’s an easy way out of seemingly intractable problems. But why state employees? There’s no doubt that some state employees are next to worthless, going along to get along and taking advantage of us all. But is it fair to characterize them all this way? Hardly. Every sector has its freeloaders, but there is this concept in economics called “socially necessary labor” in determining the value of something and along with that comes the idea that it all evens out. In other words, for every bum on the dole there are type A’s like me carrying their weight — and some.

In this case, the scapegoating of state employees is done because it works as a way of getting what you want while avoiding a real discussion of means and ends, values and priorities. Throw the bums out, and while you are at it, bring in the business leaders who really know how to run things to follow the “free” market and make it more “efficient.”

One problem with this is it just isn’t true. There is a strong empirical case to be made that state employees are very efficient. Look at just two pieces of evidence. Arnold made a campaign promise to root out and terminate waste in California government. Only his commission, The California Performance Review <http://cpr.ca.gov/report>, didn’t find much in the way of corruption or excessive waste. (Oh, they do make many viable suggestions to save the state 32 billion dollars over the next five years but the gov’ seems to have little interest in making these changes come about. Election time is over, I guess, but didn’t I hear something about a budget crisis?) Plus, when you compare just the number of state employees to population, California has one of the better ratios in the country, not to mention our high level of services that most states can’t even approach. Despite it’s strength, this evidence will not convince. People are not going to give up their easy out, and there are powerful interests that benefit from their promotion.

Besides, there are plenty of examples of historic precedent. Look at the attack on labor post the New Deal. There were the reactionary legislative attacks with Taft-Hartley and [tk]—damaging sure, but those were just the nails in the coffin. What built the coffin was an attack on the people of labor. Equating labor leaders with the world communist conspiracy was a stroke of genius. Along with the entertainment industry, labor was purged of anyone with the slightest hint of progressive values. Labor still struggles with that damaging legacy.

I could give some advice to the reactionaries who worship the “free” market, who would have us return to the heyday of American Federalism (their idea of democracy, one that limits empowerment to a few) when negroes were three fifths of a human, if that, and women were in their place—barefoot and pregnant and certainly not in the voting booth let alone elected office. The advice is this: Don’t attack the Social Security Insurance program if you want to dismantle it, attack the people who run it, or, better yet, attack the bums who live off it. Attack those who didn’t “work hard enough” or didn’t “invest” in some miracle stock to ensure their easy retirement. It’s their own fault they are not rich. (It goes without saying, shouldn’t everyone be?) Attacks on a program that works, that keeps many elderly out of retirement poverty just aren’t going to be as effective. (Not to mention the other aspects of the program that pool risk and provide benefits way beyond retirement.)

So we arrive at today. We are public employees at a great public institution. And that’s the problem. Haven’t you heard? Since the Ray-gun Revolution everything run publicly is suspect: inefficient, downright un-American. When the University of Phoenix attacks public higher education there’s charges of “unfair competition.” When it wants to lower all higher education standards so that they can increase their profit margin with more widgets produced (a.k.a. graduates) who gains really? These attacks have traction because of the groundwork laid—after all, they are public institutions staffed by state employees (need I say more?).

There was great vision and sacrifice (bi-partisan, I might add) to create the higher education system that has without doubt fed California’s world leadership. Now our problems are daunting because we live in an eternal present. Investment in the future? Who’s going to pay for that? God forbid we should even look to the future, let alone invest in it for someone else’s benefit (like our children and their children and their children, etc.).

I’m fond of telling people that I’m a very lucky man, doubly blessed. As a labor leader and employee in the CSU, not only do I get to daily defend workers rights to be full Americans in the workplace (you know, with rights such as free speech and assembly that workers in the “more efficient” private sector leave at the door), I’m a public employee both working at and defending a public institution that added greatly to the richness of my life (more quality but some quantity too) and to that of an already rich state and country. To condense my point: I’m a proud state employee. And if you work for the state, you should be too.

How should state employees react?

The governor signed his order to temporarily reduce state employee pay to the federal minimum wage. Fortunately, we in the CSU are insulated from his antics (”We are working to ensure that CSU employees will receive their regular paychecks and can expect their normal compensation until a new budget is signed,” Chancellor Reed said in a recent press release.), but we are state employees and the governor has asked the CSU to comply voluntarily with the order, so his intent was that it would affect us too. What to do? There is no question we should stand in solidarity, not only with our sister union in CSEA, SEIU Local 1000 — who would be affected, but with all state employees, whether unionized or not (his order affects non-unionized managers as well). There are two arguments that I’ve heard so far on what action, or not, to take.

On one side there is the “we need to be professional” argument, sometimes stated as taking the higher ground and not stooping to his level. This side is not happy with the turn of events but argues we should not take the bait and get involved. There is something to be said for this argument, having to do with integrity and seeing yourself as the consummate public servant. Of course, it would be hard not be involved if you are one of the 22,000 “temporary” or seasonal workers losing your job. Republican state employees are more inclined to take this tack as they are embarrassed for their governor but don’t want to abandon all hope that he will come to his senses. For some reason they saw Arnold as more than just a CEO for the state, so this corporate behavior can be a little disconcerting. States, nor businesses for that matter, don’t have to be run this way, but it does seem to be the current fad. 

On the other side there is the argument that the governor apparently needs to hear from us again, like he did with his special election attack on state employee unions a few years back. There are two approaches on this side. One says if employees are to be paid minimum wage then they should deliver work that is only worth $6.55 an hour. There are two major flaws with this particular argument.

One is that state employees are to be paid eventually (I’m assuming without interest because I haven’t heard that mentioned, which can hurt those who have to borrow money to get by) so this argument to “work to rule” doesn’t quite make sense. (BTW — The state employee credit union, Golden One, has said that for existing members with direct deposit they will provide interest-free loans equal to full wages until the budget passes. This is one of the many advantages to having your money in a credit union owned by the members, as opposed to a for-profit bank, owned by private shareholders.)

The second flaw in producing like you are being paid minimum wage has to do with the underlying assumption of low-paid work. This fallacious assumption feeds into the economic myth of meritocracy, which says that the harder you work, the more you are rewarded. While this may be true in a few lucky exceptions, the reality of our economic system is often just the opposite: the harder you work the less you are paid. So if we follow this through, state employees should be working harder than ever under minimum wage. We are, of course, speaking of working for wages and not for yourself. (I’m also not confusing physical and mental work together, comparing apples to oranges, so to speak. The mental/manual split is another myth of the working world. This idea pretends that physical labor is “unskilled” and mentally easy, again often the opposite of reality. Lots of very physical work also takes great mental discipline, skill and agility, and concentration — especially if you want to avoid injury. And on the other side, I know you’ve heard that stress kills. How is that not physical?)

The second approach to letting the governor know what we think about what he thinks about our everyday efforts on behalf of the state, assuming you agree that there is a need for us to react, is to put pressure on the process somehow. The trick is to do it not in the way the governor intended — which was to demand the Democrats give up the idea of new revenue and make deeper cuts than already proposed — but to help get a budget that doesn’t hurt working people in the state and continues to ensure that we are investing in our collective future. 

With all the press coverage provided on the budget impasse what is often missed is the bottom line, which is that the Republicans, a minority party in California, are holding the budget process hostage. Calls to reach budget compromise, often spoken against the entire legislature as “not doing their job,” miss the mark. There is not equal weight on both sides in their unwillingness to compromise. The fact of the matter is: the Democratic budget proposal is a compromise because it contains both cuts and suggestions for new revenue. If the Democrats were to present a parallel proposal to the Republican “no new taxes” mantra, it would not include any cuts to social programs. Holding an absolute “no new taxes” agenda avoids any public debate over whether everyone is paying his or her fair share. The Republicans represent a minority, unfortunately, a powerful minority. For them, holding the budget hostage is a wedge to loosen labor laws and environmental restraints, etc. — things having little to do with the budget directly.

So the message should be, loud and clear, hold the line Democrats; don’t cave. You’ve compromised enough. How long can they hold out? It may be up to state employees. We may be able to last through the November election. It’s a long shot but possible that the Democrats can pick up enough seats (the question is: how big are Obama’s coattails?) to have a 2/3 majority outright. Just two seats in the State Senate and six in the State Assembly are all that’s needed. The governor at any point after a budget is passed can still exercise his line-item veto before he signs it and make any cuts he thinks he can politically get away with.

Other than that, I don’t have a short-term fix to the budget process because we are too deep in the dodo. I do have long-term ideas, with the strong bias that any eventual fixes to our budget process be democracy-enhancing (e.g. a simple return to majority rule would be a good start).

I’ve said it before, the budget process is about values. What kind of state do we want to be? One where quality of life for everyone (especially working people) is a focus or one where a powerful minority who are bent on playing Monopoly in real time get their way with the majority. We call this a democracy, but sometimes you have to wonder.

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.

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.