Nabble - OPEIU Voice- Open Forum -

test

2009-12-10T17:43:03Z

Re: ObamaCare and the '47 million' uninsured

2009-08-12T15:45:55Z

Hi Dave,

Health care is quite a hot topic now and I'm glad you created a post about the potential overhaul/reform, here in our forums.

Your post is quite thought-provoking and I was wondering if you could share the source of the statistics you quoted.

Fraternally,

Dustin

ps I'm upgrading to a newer forum section but kept the 'Nabble' forums for reference of previous postings. You may choose to post in our new forums - http://opeiuvoice.freeforums.org

ObamaCare and the '47 million' uninsured

2009-08-10T12:42:18Z

Hi LOCAL 30 brothers and sisters:

Having a great interest in politics working here at Kaiser as been interesting. It's very easy to tell from the letters we receive from Mr. Halvorson to the Union steward publications we get in the mail that news we get as employees are biased and untrue. I want to start by shedding light on the dark number of 47 million that are claimed to be "uninsured". According to the US Census Bureau:

- 45% of the 47 million are UNDOCUMENTED (ILLEGAL) Immigrants. (This means they are NOT US citizens and should not be afforded the rights and priviledges of Americans. Especially are Brothers and Sisters who were foreign and properly assimilated according to current United States legislation.)

- 29.3% are the 18-24 year olds who think they'll never get sick therefore choose not to pay for any health care coverage

- 8.5% are reportedly earning upwards of around $75,000 annually and choose not to pay for any health care coverage

- 9% are reportedly eligible for state run health care (IE. SCHIP, MEDI-CAL) but for unknown reasons do not sign up to receive these benefits.

The remainder 8.8% (4.1mil) are the americans that Health Reform could really help. All Americans know the US is in dire need of true health care reform. There is a difference between change and reform and what Obama is doing is trying to change the scope and outlook of the US Economy. Reform is prudent change and prudence would serve us all best when is comes to deciding to 'fork over' 1/7th of the United States economy.

Dave

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2009-06-21T20:17:00Z

Hi Litia,

I understand that you intended the areas addressed within your post as, "question[s] to ponder" but I'd like to offer my perspective regarding a few of the areas;

In regards to Management moving Employees' shifts and work locations:

Article 5 of the agreement between our Union and our Employer (Kaiser Permanente) addresses some of the rights of Managements (such as those in regards to Employees' shifts, workloads and work locations). Article 8 also addresses this area stating, "Notwithstanding posted requirements, the Employer shall have the right to assign any Employee within a classification to any job assignment, task assignment, work location, or desk assignment."

Notwithstading the above sections of the agreement, Article 12, Section 6 describes how the Employer will attempt to schedule Employees and Article 12, Section 7 describes how the correct process for changing Employees' shifts, when doing so becomes necessary (as determined by the Employer).

If a Union Member is dealing with a difficult situation (such as the one you described), I would encourge him/her to contact a Union Steward and/or Business Agent within the Union and discuss his/her concerns (specifically mentioning the two, latter articles mentioned above). However, good luck with getting our Union to file a grievance on your behalf - chances are, you'll need to fight our own office in order to try to get them to fight for us.

In regards to your concerns about the LMP:

There are many others who are concerned about the manner in which the LMP has been implemented, here, in San Diego. That is why, when David Kessinger ran for the position of Executive Director of OPEIU, Local 30, last year, he explained that the LMP needed to be changed (see: http://opeiu30.org/DavidForExecutiveDirector.html). However, I don't necessarily agree with the "in bed with management" characterization; I believe it's necessary to understand that there are certain areas of mutual interest, shared by both Union Members and our Employer (i.e. Company success/Employee Success, Worker Safety). These areas can be worked on, together in order for our Employer to "thrive" so that we, as Employees, may share in this thriving by receiving better compensation and safer workplaces, etc. But I do agree with your concern that, notwithstanding the fact that we, as Employees, are the major funders of the LMP at Kaiser, it feels like we are getting the short end of the stick quite often.
It's near that time when our Union chooses whether to remain in the LMP or to exit the program. I believe it's either time to fix the LMP, or leave it.

Fraternally,

Dustin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2009-04-27T16:27:20Z

I would like to know how Jack Ward can take employees who have applied for and recieved positions that are for certain areas and certain days and work shifts and move them around? Unless the job posting states varied shifts and days then it is my understanding that he cannot do this. I am not an EVS employee but am VERY familiar with Mr. Ward when he was the ADA for SPD. Not very well liked, very sneaky, and very untrustworthy. He has the management mentality of "do now and take consequences later" much of that of the DA for the Operating Room.

There many, many problems with LMP, the single most important being that we are in bed with management! How can we as a union have any power at all when we are really sleeping with the enemy?

Just a question to ponder.

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-12-14T09:16:49Z

Question:
Hi Dustin,

... Still allot of problems in our Department. Jack Ward has already changed our whole departments schedules. We haven't changed yet. Was suppose to change December 28, 2008 but now I heard not until January. He has taken it on his own and revised a new schedule. He is having ALL of the clinic worker being pulled from the clinic two days out of the week to work the hospital two weekends a month and having people at the hospital fill in at the clinic when the clinic workers are at the hospital. Doesn't make any sense to us. I have asked one of our Supervisor, Christina twice now what was the purpose of the new changes. First time the answer was that the people that were working weekend were tired and thought that it wasn't fair that clinic workers were off all weekend. (Which isn't that what SENIORITY is partly about?) The second time the answer was that our department is short on worker. More areas and not enough people to work them. (Doesn't make any sense once again. How is that going to change if you are just swapping out worker for worker.) We don't know which days we will be pulled and we don't know where we will be working or if we ever worked that type of job. So, so much for SENIORITY. What? will we be back at DAY 1, having to keep checking a schedule board again to see where we will be working and then getting in trouble because they changed it somewhere in between when we were at the hospital working and then back at the clinic. We have applied for the jobs that we have to work around our family's and some people have part time jobs on the week ends just to be able to make house payments. Clinic's are night workers and from what I can remember their are allot more EVS workers in the day at the Hospital and if we are put in a day position how is that going to upset a Clinic worker. .... Anyways is this something that Jack Ward can do on his own without getting some kind of higher approval. That rules for our department are different then other departments. At least they have seemed like they are lately. I don't understand why all this stuff is happening in our department now. January I will have 19 years at Kaiser and never before did we ever have so much trouble. I could go on and on but I better send this... Remember we are night workers and our time schedule doesn't change on weekends or vacation in fact. If you have or get any information I would appreciate if you would let me know too.... Sorry for not writing a more professional e-mail but this is just getting to be so irritating its ridicules.

Answer:
... Also, thank you for the information. I agree with you in that the two reasons provided fr the recent changes don't make any sense. Unfortunately, KP Management is pretty much in charge of making the decisions (even when they don't make sense) and even though we are in a "partnership" with them. - You may notice a lot of areas within the contract where it's stated that Management will discuss will Labor in regards to various issues but that the final decision is that of Managment.

Yes, Managment is supposed to negotiate work changes with the Union, however, I'm sure that Management will state that it already has when we negotiated our contract. They could point to articles like Articles 5 and 12, Section 6 and explain how they are in compliance with it. There are several 'grey areas' within article 12 but you'll notice at, paragraph 1225, that "...the final right to arrange working schedules rests with the Employer...".

On a lighter note, I do know that the Union does not agree with weekend rotation/ Zion rotation and is supposedly filing a grievance in regards to these issues. Perhaps the Union will remind Management about 'LMP', hold hands and sing coombiyah and get lucky on this one. But, according to our contract, Management is within it's rights.

If (when) OPEIU, Local 30 fails to change Management's decision, I encourage all of the Workers in EVS to file a grievance each time Management makes an error on the schedule. - If Management is going to make the Worker's lives miserable with the schedule, the least the Workers can do is to do the same to Management. - But good luck trying to get the Union to sign and file the grievances. My impression is that they are trying to stay away from filing grievances (even when all else has failed and the Workers are still getting screwed).

Updae: Please check out the petition, in relation to his issue, which is currently available on our homepage (www.OPEIUVoice.org).

Fraternally,

Dustin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-12-13T10:56:31Z

Question:
Is the Union working on getting the EVS jobs, which were outsourced throughout San Diego County, brought back inhouse?

Answer:
No. This has been one of the prime issues which have aggitated me for quite a long time. To date, the EVS jobs you are refering to have been outsourced for more than eight years. The outsourcing of said positions was agreed to by our Union under Bill Stowe's adminsitration of OPEIU, Local 30. Since that time, none of the positions have been brought back inhouse and a subcontractor continues to be utilized by Kaiser. Further, as new facilities have been added within the San Diego area (such as the San Marcos, Oceanside and Kearny Mesa facilities) the EVS positions in those facilities have also been outsourced under Walter Allen's administration of OPEIU, Local 30. I have been on outspoken critic of the repercussios of this outsourcing issue. I have been described as a "thorn in our [OPEIU, Local 30 Staff's] side," as quoted by OPEIU, Local 30 President, Marianne Giordano. My attending OPEIU, Local 30 Membership Meetings has been in futility as the current OPEIU, Local 30 Staff and Executive Board has chosen not to act in regards to this issue (as well as others which I have attempted to have them address). Therefore, I have discontinued attending Membership and Steward meetings and recently attempted an unsuccessful bid for an Executive Board postion, where I may be able to better influence the other Board Members and OPEIU, Local 30 Staff in regards to important issues such as outsourcing. So, to reaffirm the answer to your question, no, the Union is not currently working to regain the EVS bargaining unit positions which Kaiser outsourced nor is the Union working to keep new EVS bargaining unit positions from being outsourced.
Fraternaly,
Dustin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-12-13T10:32:51Z

Question:
Can I file a grievance in regards to a HIPPA concern [misuse, unauthorized access, etc. of medical records and/or Member/ Patient Information]?

Answer:
Yes. This may be a violation of Article 2, Section 4. You may also chose to contact your Supervisor, Kaiser Human Resources and/or Kaiser Corporate Compliance (if you choose to contact Kaiser Corporate Compliance you may do so and elect to remain anonymous).
Fraternally,
Dustin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-12-13T10:24:38Z

Question:
I would like to file a grievance against another coworker. Can I do this?

Answer:
Contrary to what 'the Union' may tell you, you may file a grievance in regards to this issue, however, you would not file the grievance against your Coworker, you would technically be filing the grievance against your Employer. Grievances may only be filed when the issue at hand is a violation of the contract. For Kaiser Employees covered under OPEIU/ Kaiser Agreement, the grievance would be based on a violation would be of Article 1, Section 3. And, while you will probably get a lot of resistance from 'the Union' in regards to actually filing this grievance, I encourage you to also persue addressing your Coworker concerns through the Kaiser Personnel office.
Fraternally,
Dustin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-12-13T09:58:56Z

Question:
How much do we get for the PSP this year?

Answer:
We don't know (as of today's date). Reportedly, PSP goals run through the middle of December so the results can not yet be definatively tabulated (as of today's date). When results are finally tabulated, you may expect to receive the PSP amount for which we qualify around April of 2009.

Fratrnally,
Dutin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-12-13T09:51:47Z

Question:
Hi once again. I figured you would remember me but I wasn't sure if you still had the same e-mail or not and I didn't want to be wasting my time on writing to someone else. ...... Do you know anything that is suppose to be going on in EVS? Our Manager sprung a meeting on us last Wednesday but I couldn't make it. ... Which they didn't notify everybody any ways. A co-worker told me of the meeting the night before... Any ways I was told by another co-worker that Jack Ward wants to bring all of the EVS at the clinics to the hospital to work and hire out ALL the clinics. But then yet they said that Jack Ward also said that some of the Couriers and File Clerks and another department or two would be transferring to EVS. Which would make more sense then outsourcing. But when I talked to one of the Couriers last night, he said that they had a meeting and was told that they were staying where they were and that they weren't going anywhere. EV'S workers are just so stressed about what is going on with us and what is not going on. In the last meeting that I went to Jack said that we weren't going to have a realignment. Then 2 weeks ago I was on vacation and they had another meeting and they were told that we were going to have a realignment. This last meeting on Wednesday the 24Th they said that Jack said that we would know by November of this year. I have more to talk to you about but I'll wait for a response from you to see if you know anything about what I have sad so far. Thank you for responding so soon.

Answer:
Hi ...,
I was not aware of either of the scenarios you asked about, in regards to EVS. I contacted Mark Bailey from the Union office (I did not use your name) and asked the questions of him. He confirmed that Management had in fact configured a new budget relative to a possible realignment. But, he said that no talks had taken place between Management and the Union in regards to a realignment. Mark also stated that it would be, "stupid of [the Union] to agree to outsource more clinics" and he seemed to insist that would not happen. According to Mark, one of the primary reasons for a potential realignment was because of a proposed change in operating hours and addition of UAC in La Mesa. According to Mark, there was no proposed timeframe for the potential realignment. In regards to couriers be reassigned to work in EVS, our National contract provides for Workers to be retrained where reasonably possible and/ or reassigned to other work, should that Worker's position be eliminated (rather than simply being laid off). However, no cuts within the courier department have been made as of this time. A United Based Team may be forming soon though, within the Logistics Departement, which may have some influence in regards to the effects of Health Connect and the impending changes which may result. Mark asked me to convey that anyone intereted in contacting him about this issue may and he promises to reply quickly.
Fraternaly,
Dustin

Dedication

2008-10-23T09:59:52Z
Some of you may be aware of the ongoing struggle within the SEIU and one of it's largest locals, the United Health Care Workers West, www.SEIU-UHW.org.
Regardless of which 'side' you may be on, you need to admire the dedication the Members have for their Union (example).
Hearing about, seeing and reading such passion causes me to pause and wonder, "Does our Union have any Members who feel this strongly about our Union?"
Fraternally,
Dustin

Re: Maybe it's Just Me but...

2008-10-03T16:45:51Z
From: "Dustin Teske"
To: wca55@aol.com
Cc: marianne.giordano@sbcglobal.net

Walter,
Thank you for your unexpectedly expeditious response and for trying to clarify my "confusion".
We agree in that it is human nature to form negative opinions in regards to issues, when the circumstances are not entirely known. Unfortunately in this instance, one may still have negative opinions after the circumstances are known as well.
You state that the rationale as to why only non-Employer locations were chosen, to conduct the ratification meetings, was, "...in order to assure members the privacy to comment as they see fit and not fear intrusion of any kind". This seems like excessive paranoia; We are in a partnership with our Employer and, within the context of the partnership, an agreement in regards to a few, small wage increases and increased retiree benefits was made. What type of comments, about those two issues and which the Member making said comments may prefer Management not be aware of, would one expect to hear at the ratification meetings? Further, if any Member truly did have comments or questions which (s)he didn't want the Employer privy to, why couldn't the Member simply attend a ratification meeting offered at the OPEIU, Local 30 office? Or, better still, why couldn't the Member simply call the Union office at a time convenient to him/her, make the comments/ ask the questions in complete privacy, and then attend a ratification meeting at the most convenient place and time for him/her, in order to vote?
Your confirmation that the Labor Management Partnership and Management have, "...[no] responsibility to this [ratification] process...," solidifies the point I made; The Employer and Union formed a partnership greater than a decade ago, yet here is a prime example of how the Employer could easily provide a benefit for our Union and it's Members (which wouldn't cost the Employer anything [and is legal] and would result in a significant savings for our Union and added convenience for it's Members) but the Employer does not. - What an interesting way to show how we are partners.
Due to the fact that (out of about 4,000 OPEIU, Local 30 Members who work for Kaiser Permanente) only about 200 voted, it seems quite probable that more may have chosen to participate had the process been made more convenient for them. As an added benefit, the Union (we) could have saved hundreds of dollars by not having to rent out numerous hotel meeting rooms.
In regards to your answer about the Employer's People Pulse Survey, I really don't see how the results of that survey could be of benefit when the Union is, "...told by management how our members feel about certain issues..." But, if you believe these results, in any way, may benefit the Members, I will trust your judgment.
In regards to your suggestion regarding the use of the Employer's internal email, I do not know what this suggestion was in response to, but thank you for the suggestion.
I understand that, as the elected Executive Director of our Union, it is ultimately you who controls which voting procedures will be utilized. The above are my thoughts in regards to the issues discussed and I appreciate your taking the time to consider them.
Again, thank you for your previous response and attempting to clarify my "confusion".
Fraternally,
Dustin

Re: Maybe it's Just Me but...

2008-10-03T15:31:42Z
Re: Maybe it's Just Me but...
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:18 AM

From: "wca55@aol.com" <wca55@aol.com>

To: dustin.teske@sbcglobal.net
Cc: marianne.giordano@sbcglobal.net

Dustin,

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

Walter

Maybe it's Just Me but...

2008-10-02T15:44:59Z
(Sent to Walter Allen 10/02/08)

Hi,

Ok, so maybe it's just me but...
It seems to me that our Union (WE) just spent a lot of money renting out hotel meeting rooms so that the Members of our Union, working at Kaiser Permanente and the California Service Center, could vote on our most recent contract amendments. I speculate the amount spent to rent out the four hotel meeting rooms, across San Diego County, to be hundreds of dollars.
Now that our Union and Kaiser Permanente have been engaged within the 'Labor Management Partnership' for more than a decade, and seeing as how it would have been much more convenient for our Members to vote on-campus, why did we have to waste a lot of money for less convenience? It seems to me that Kaiser Permanente, our 'partner' should have had no issue with permitting us with the use of a little space at each facility for this sort of voting event.
Adding insult to injury, our Union recently emailed myself (and I'll go out on a limb here and expect that they emailed others as well) a statement encouraging me to complete this year's Kaiser Permanente People Pulse survey. Why does our Union allow Management access to me, through my Union, while Management does not allow my Union access to me, through my Employer?

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

Dustin

Re: A Look Back on the Election

2008-09-02T19:29:22Z
Well, as you may notice, I have had a couple days to really think about the question I had wondered of myself. During this time, I recalled a story told to me by my Pastor from Church and this story seemed to relate to my question. The story went something like this...

There was a man who lived near the beach and, during the evening, decided he'd wake up early the next morning and go for a walk on the beach to see the sunrise. While on his walk, he noticed a man just above the shoreline, taking a few steps, then, stopping to bend down, pick something up and toss whatever it was into the water. The observing man watched as the the man repeated this process for quite some distance down the shoreline, until he was out of sight. The man watched as the sun rose and the thought of the strange man on the shoreline faded from his thoughts.
The next day, the man again awoke in time to walk on the beach in time to see the sunrise and, once again, he noticed the same man, walking along the shoreline, bending over to pick something up and then tossing it into the water. The man studied this behavior and thought to himself how arduous the task looked for the other man. The other man was older and leaned on a cane for support and it was obvious it was difficult for him to bend over each time in order to pick up whatever thing he was getting from the sand. The man on the shoreline came closer, while performing this task. When within earshot, the observing man said to him, "I noticed you here yesterday doing the same thing you're doing now. What is it that you're doing?"
"The starfish get washed up on the beach, above the shoreline during the evening. If they aren't back in the water soon after sun up, the sun will dry them out and they will die" the man answered him.
The observing man scouffed, "But that's a lot of work, I can see it's not easy for you to pick them up. And surely you can't save them all before the sun is up and it gets too hot. What difference can you possibly hope to make?"
The man looked down at the starfish by his feet and stooped to pick it up. He then gently tossed it into the water. "I made a difference for that one," he answered.

A Look Back on the Election

2008-08-30T14:13:51Z

Hi,
As some of you who are reading this know, OPEIU, Local 30, just had an election of officers. David Kessinger, Donald Murphey and myself ran on the same ticket. It was we who were the first candidates within our local Union to create a website and utilize this tool in order to try to provide easily accessable information about all of the candidates, for Members. In contrast, those in charge of our Union's official website, Walter Allen Jr, essentially provided ZERO information about the election on his website. Next, we bought "Vote for..." pins and were able to hand out a few of them as well as a few of our joint flyers...before being contacted by Kaiser Permanente, Corporate Compliance Director, Donna Lupinacci, who informed us that no compaigning of any kind was permitted on an Kaiser campuses (either during the candidates working time or during their non-working time. Before, during and after that time (and in fact throughout the weeks leading up to to the election end time) we were aware of the 'Winning Team' which was doing exactly that - and in fact campaigned at nearly every Kasier Permanente facility in San Diego. Candidates such as Walter Allen Jr., Marianne Giordano, Carmen Corral, and Hector Peralta campaigned on Kaiser Permanente property, handing out their literature to Workers while those Workers were on 'Kaiser's Time' and commonly within their work areas, posting their flyers in break areas and non-break areas alike and Employee areas and non-Employees areas as well. Corporate Compliance was contacted but the candiates who had broken the rules had already gotten their message out.
Our Team, Team: New Directions, New Strength, is considering how next to proceed in order to best address this election process. While considering the next course of action, we will consider the many violations of the 'Winning Team' and other factors. Factors such as the fact that despite fact that the 'Team: New Directions, New Strength' forged more new ground for our Union by being the first to mail informational flyers to each and every Member's home (the 'Winning Team' then followed our lead by mailing a post card), still, LESS THAN 23% of our Members participated in the election! 77% of the Members of our Union didn't even vote during this mail-in election!!
Even though I lost, I don't regret all the work I put into this election. I learned a lot through out the process. But the one thing I learned which absolutely disappointed me the most was that with as much effort that was placed into letting everyone know about this election and trying to provide them with easy access to as much information about it as possible, 77% of the Members didn't even vote. As much as I love what Unions are supposed to stand for, the question that begs to be answered is, "If they don't care, why should I?"
Dustin

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-07-29T12:32:06Z

Question:
"Dissention is the greatest form of Patriotism"
This is not a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Furthermore it is a stupid quote as evidenced by the fact that Benedict Arnold was a dissentor.

Answer:
Hi,
Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate hearing yours and everyone who would like to offer feedback about the website.
However, "Dissention is the greatest form of Patriotism" is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Further, one may be a dessenter without being a traitor too, as in your referencing of Benedict Arnold. In absence of dissention, is complacency and stagnation. Dissention offers growth, revolution, and evolution.
Fraternally,
Dustin Teske

Re: Amendments of Concern

2008-07-26T12:46:40Z
Update (2):
I have no information in regards to how many people attended the Arizona, General Membership Meeting (however, it does appear that there was not a quorum as Walter's Constitution and Bylaws changes were not voted upon during that meeting).
Reportedly, the Los Angeles, General Membership meeting was attended by some of the office staff and business agents within our Union and Executive Board Members were all who attended; therefore no quroum was reached there as well.
I attended the San Diego, General Membership meeting on July 24th. Approximately two dozen people attended and there was a quorum. Prior to the Membership voting on them, Walter's proposed Constitution and Bylaws changes were read. David Kessinger and I were the only Members who asked questions in regards to these proposals. I inquired as to why a new section 7, " 'It shall be the responsibility of every steward to at all times place the best interest of this union ahead of any other concerns. Stewards who engage in actions that are contrary to the policies and best interests of this union may be removed by the Executive Director.' " was being proposed. The Executive Board already has the authority, as provided within our contract, to remove a Steward if it believes it is necessary to do so. Additonally, there is a noted appeals process. Walter's response was that these proposals were "boiler plate language" and that actually he did not craft these proposal changes, rather, that Members from Arizona, Los Angeles and San Diego had. This was the extent of his response.
So, to believe Walter, it has Members (and not he) who proposed that Walter be given additional POWER over our Union Stewards. So that, when Walter chooses to remove a Steward for whatever he may deem as not being in compliance with, "... at all time place[ing] the best interest of this union ahead of any other concerns." Although possible, that seems very unlikely; how often do you sit at home wondering how you could help Walter have more POWER and CONTROL over us?
Nonetheless, the proposals were voted on and I was the only Member who voted 'No'. The proposals passed. Now, while it's quite possible that I may be the first Steward Walter removes, who will be the second...third...fourth...? And now that he has this additional power, will Stewards be more or less likely to speak against anything Walter is in favor of, even if they believe it to not be in the best interest of our fellow Members?
Fraternally,
Dustin Teske

Re: Eye of the Beholder (and Subject to Timing)

2008-07-19T21:06:58Z
Hi Notross,
Thanks, I appreciate your compliments in regards to the website, particularily the uncensored forums, and correcting me in regards to my spelling of 'Henrietta'.
In regards to your views and question about whether we had read the same articles, obviously we did but we received differing perspective after reading the same information.
Thanks for your suggestion in regards to simply providing links to articles, however, I think I'll continue to provide links to articles, offer my perspectives on them and invite for everyone else to do the same.
I appreciate your comments; please let me know if you think of any additional suggestions.
Fraternally,
Dustin

Re: Eye of the Beholder (and Subject to Timing)

2008-07-19T18:49:35Z
Dustin,

This is my first time looking at your website, and I have to compliment you on having a place for members of Local 30 to review and discuss the issues which take place in our union and in the San Diego Area.

That said, it's a shame that you use the forum to distort and inflame. Did we read the same articles?

The article written by Henrietta (not "Henretta") did not describe "some Stewards as renegades and likens them to "snakes on [a] plane" due to undertaking such challenges as "fight[ing] losing battles"."

Henrietta used a rhetorical question when she asked, "Are renegade stewards the rhetorical snakes on a plane of Partnership?" This was a question asked from the management perspective, and not Henrietta's own opinion of union stewards. Likewise, "losing battles" is a trait applied to stewards from a management perspective for the same rhetorical purpose. In the very next question, she asks if that could be "idle grousing" on the part of the managers. The rest of the article went on to detail steward and employee reactions to these questions.

In regards to the article "Why I Want A Strong Steward", written by Gwen Gascie, there was nothing about "agreement" written anywhere in that article. I happen to know this Operations Manager and have worked with her on numerous occaisions in the workplace, in contract negotiations and in Corrective Actions. She comes from a background of being a union member with KP in Oakland and is a fair person to work with. For Gwen, "agreement" does not make her want the steward to be more involved. She wants labor involved because is creates a stronger environment. It's all there in the article.

If you are going to distort what we can read for ourselves, please just provide the link without your commentary.

Re: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions

2008-07-18T17:36:29Z
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dustin Teske"
Subject: RE: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions
To: All Stewards
CC: "OPEIU Local 30"
Hi Fellow Members and Stewards,
Mr. Allen resides on nuymerous committees and councils on which he holds probably as many titles. He travels quite frequently in order to participate in the many meetings each hold and we pay him quite generously for all of this. He fails us when he doesn't communicate information, such as labor actions and boycotts endorsed by the other Unions which comprise those committees and councils. The primary purpose of them meeting is to share information with their respective Memberships and work together to support one another.
I agree with Mr Allen's recent decisioon to finally share some of the information offered by the San Diego and Imperial Labor Council, of which our Union is a Member, even though Mr. Allen had previously, hypocritically admonished me for sharing some of the San Diego and Imperial Labor Council's other recommendations, previously.
In regards to this Union, Mr. Allen, or any other organization or person taking away one's right and freedom to choose for oneself, they don't have that power or control. Walmart is a prime example of this; Most Union Members are aware that Unions in general discourage Members from shopping there, yet, many Members still do. They excercise their freedom to choose whether to patronize one of the most Anti-Union companies, but at least their Unions have provided them with information as to why it may be better if they didn't. The only person who can mark the boxes in your ballot or choose where you shop is you. A portion of our dues are spent in order to fund the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and I expect them to provide us with information regarding issues which effect working families and to provide 'Labor's Recommendation'. - Otherwise, what is their purpose?
Those are my thoughts on these issues, what are yours?
Fraternally,
Dustin Teske
Alyssa and Britney's Dad
OrganizingAdvocate
dustin.teske@sbcglobal.net
www.UnionGuide.org
www.OPEIU30.org
www.TheIGUA.org
www.Unions.org
Phone: (858) 568-1333 / Fax: (530) 325-3489

Re: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions

2008-07-17T16:01:57Z
From: "OPEIU Local 30" <opeiu_local30@sbcglobal.net>
To: Larry.E.Petrea@kp.org
CC: ...
Subject: RE: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:10:56 -0700
All,

Support being requested for the action against the Grand Hyatt is coming from UNITE HERE, the union representing workers in the hotel industry. The union's issues concern the extreme anti-worker policies of Mr. Manchester, owner of the Hyatt, and his absolute unwillingness to accept a union under any conditions. He currently pays minimum wage (as required by law) and does not provide healthcare benefits to workers at this hotel. The union has a minimum wage of between $10 & $12 per hour for these workers and provides healthcare (in fact Kaiser coverage too).

Manchester likes to make his opinions very public and often draws fire from local groups. His views on same sex marriage are attracting the attention of Pride At Work, another civil rights group with which Local 30 is affiliated with but, this request comes directly from UNITE HERE, a local union here in San Diego that we have supported before and that often supports us as well.

Support for these workers as they try to get some justice out of a very wealthy company that can easily afford to do the right thing is, in my opinion the right thing to do and in no way asks or expects anyone to give up any of their personal rights or beliefs.

Thanks.

Walter

Re: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions

2008-07-17T16:00:49Z
To: opeiu_local30@sbcglobal.net
CC: ...
Subject: Re: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions
From: Larry.E.Petrea@kp.org
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:08:31 -0700

I do not understand why we are approving and asking for support of the Actions on the Manchester Grand Hyatt.
My understanding is this is a Personal check to an organization and has nothing to do with the business concern.
I have further researched the business and understand that they have a very favorable history in regards to hiring
practices involving the Gay and Lesbian community.
Are we not to be able to have our own personal beliefs in this world and particularly within this Union?
Are we not able to practice our own "Personal" Freedom of Religion without harassment?
I believe this particular Union Action is unwarranted.
I also believe that actions such as these do not endear us to the community and makes it that much harder to organize.
I would like to see us drop the approval of OPEIU Local 30 in regards to this Boycott action.
This is in no way a statement of my support or non-support of the rights for Gays to marry.
It is just that I do not believe we should cause damage to business in our community because of a Personal belief of its owner.
Also, by supporting this action in this way I feel damages our belief and support of Freedom of Religion.
Thank You, Larry Petrea

Larry E Petrea
Account Administration Representative
Large Accounts Inland Empire Team
858-614-3435
larry.e.petrea@kp.org

Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions

2008-07-17T15:59:27Z
From: "OPEIU Local 30" <opeiu_local30@sbcglobal.net>
To: ...
Subject: Labor Council Reminder of Ongoing and Sanctioned Actions
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:19:03 -0700

SENT ON BEHALF OF WALTER ALLEN

Dear Executive Board Members and Stewards,

The following is being forwarded to you for your information.

Thank you,
Maria Perez

Executive Assistant to

Walter Allen, Jr., Executive Director/CFO

OPEIU, Local 30

4560 Alvarado Canyon Rd., Suite 2H

San Diego, CA 92120

(619) 640-4840

opeiu_local30@sbcglobal.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan McLaughlin <EMcLaughlin@unionyes.org>
To: Evan McLaughlin <EMcLaughlin@unionyes.org>
Sent: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 6:28 pm
Subject: LABOR COUNCIL reminder of ongoing and sanctioned actions

Brothers and Sisters of the Executive Board,

This letter is to remind you of three current actions that are ongoing or sanctioned in San Diego County:

1. A boycott of Coca-Cola products and a strike at the Coca-Cola Enterprises plant in Oceanside (as requested by Teamsters Local 683 and approved).
2. A boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in downtown San Diego (as requested by UNITE HERE Local 30 and approved).
3. Effective Monday, July 14, a 5-day strike at the University of California, San Diego, with picket lines at the Medical Center in Hillcrest, the Thornton Hospital on East Campus, and the Gilman Parking Structure on Main Campus (as requested by AFSCME Local 3299 and approved).

Letters memorializing the sanctioned actions are available at the Labor Council upon request. Please contact myself or Geshalem Perez at 619/228-8101 ext 1.

In Solidarity,

Evan

#######################################
Evan McLaughlin, Political Director
San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO
3717 Camino Del Rio S., San Diego, CA 92108
tel: 619/228-8101 x3 | fax: 619/281-1296
emclaughlin@unionyes.org

04/24/08 - General Membership Meeting

2008-04-25T09:08:25Z
Sources say, the OPEIU, Local 30 General Membership meeting (04/25/08), in San Diego, actually had enough Members in attendance so that a quarom (at least 15 Members) was established. -This was not the case for the LA General Membership Meeting or the Arizona General Membership Meeting earlier this month. This permitted the meeting to proceed as more than simply 'informational only' - when information may be shared but no official business may take place. Walter was then able to push his agenda in regards to the, previously reported, Constitution and Bylaws changes he would like to make.
Additionally, among the topics discussed was the 3% or higher wage increased which was negotiated during the 2005 Kaiser/Kaiser Coalition of Unions Agreement and which was to be realized by San Diego, Kaiser Employees represented by OPEIU, Local 30 in October of this year. According to one source, Kaiser is baulking at whether the organization is committed to providing even the minimum 3% increase (much less being obligated to negotiate over a potentially higher percentage). It is quite concerning that an organization which has received plenty of media coverage conveying the stong position Kaiser is in financially would try to convey a much different perspective to it's Employees rather than sharing to what we have all contributed. What is of further concern is the fact that there is a large wage disparity between Employees who work for Kaiser in the LA area and those Employees who work or Kaiser in the San Diego area (ranging from approximately $2-$5 per hour, depending on the job classification); San Diego Employees, performing the same or similar work as those in LA, deserve to have this wage gap closed. As our Union's current Administration prepares for bargaining in regards to this important issue, let's hope they feel the same way.
Fraternally,
Dustin

Senator Dianne Feinstein's Response To "Employee Free Choice Act" Letter

2008-03-27T16:24:58Z
Dear Mr. Teske:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the "Employee Free Choice Act" (S. 1041). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome this opportunity to respond.

Like you, I believe it is important that American workers have the right to organize. I believe companies should work with employees to improve working conditions and must be held accountable for any unlawful actions taken against workers who participate in organizing efforts.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. 1041 on March 29, 2007. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which would enhance workers' ability to organize and increase penalties against employers that violate labor laws during organizing efforts. On June 26, 2007, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800, the companion legislation to S. 1041, was defeated by a vote of 51-48. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider S. 1041 or H.R. 800 in the future.

Once again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep in touch on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

Performance Sharing Program 2007

2008-03-27T13:46:36Z
It's bonus time for 2008. The PSP amount, since the program's conception, has been reduced every year and reevaluated as committees permit. The data, establishing percentages and the goals has always been a mystery to me. No matter how much work is done, obtaining these goals, the maximum amount of $2,000 seems to be unobtainable. This year many of the percentages were very close. It seems odd we never exceed or meet these goals, nor do the goals ever change. The biggest money savings is attendance. This goal in particular is most interesting due to the high dollar amount it represents. According to Kaiser attendance costs millions. Our goal was 27%. We achieved 15.34% savings. I'd like to use the following scenerio as an example. I'm asked to lose weight with a goal of 10 pounds for one month. I only lose six pounds. Knowing the hard work, changing my diet and willpower to achieve the goal I recieve nothing. No praise of appreciation, no recognition of my hard work up to and including no positive energy to continue losing weight. So, for me personally, I'd gain weight. It is apparent Kaiser has saved millions, from the small percentage achieved, yet we've recieved nothing... not even a "thank you". Where is the incentive to achieve any of the goals? Lower the percentages or change the goals to be easily obtainable. What is your opinion???

Re: Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-03-10T13:53:07Z

Question
Hello Dustin,
Could you send me a few stickers about cingular???
I like your website, maybe local 30 should look too? :)
Sincerly & In Unity,

Answer
Hi,
I'm happy to provide you with some of the 'My Wireless is Union' stickers which I have.
I also appreciate your support of my site; I'm not sure how often the office views it (though I'm sure they wouldn't admit to ever). I'm most disappointed in the unfortunate truth that it's existence hasn't proded Walter to do anything with the officical site. There was some talk of their intent to create an all-new site....I'm still waiting. Seriously, it would be nice if they would do something, the current one is an embarrasment. I was also hoping my resignation from the 'Communications Committee' would spur Walter to have the committee (and many of the others) actually meet! It may not have met post my resignation. Other 'sub-committee' members, such as David Kessinger, have been awaiting their respective sub-committees to reconveine for equally as long (if not longer). David has not had been involved in the last few newsletters (he is on the Newsletter subcommittee).
With the new year, comes new opportunities!
Are you considering running for a Union position this new year?
Fraternally,
Dustin

Anonymous Recently Asked Questions (You're Welcome to Submit Yours)

2008-03-10T13:45:22Z
Hi! I occassionally receive questions and thought perhaps it would be a good idea to begin a Recently Asked Questions (RAQ) section. I hope this will be utilized and useful for us; Everyone may register for a FREE account for our forums and post anything they choose.

Question:
Is there a way to get a copy of their by-laws?
We recently asked for a copy of the minutes to our last general meeting. It was told to us that there were "no" minutes to that meeting because there was not a quarom.
We attended that meeting for about an hour and they certainly held a meeting.
I want to see where it states that no minutes need to be recorded at any of their minutes.
anxious to hear back
Thanks

Answer:
Hi,
Thank you for writing; I'm always eager to receive questions and feedback from fellow Members and "Unofficially OPEIU 30" site visitors!
We did have a 'Rogue Reporter' whom attended the most recent Union meeting in San Diego and I was briefed about the meeting by him. According to the information I was given, it is correct that there was not an adequate number of Members in attendance (a quorum of 15 or more Members are needed [there were only 14 present]) so that the Union could hold an official meeting. Instead, what did take place was called an "informational meeting". During informational meetings, the OPEIU, Local 30's elected Recording Secretary, Diane Nunez (diane.t.nunez@kp.org), is not obligated to take minutes of the meeting. During informational meetings, no business (such as Walter's latest agenda, http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=15101510&framed=y) may be introduced for a vote or voted on.
At your discretion, I could send to you a copy of OPEIU Local 30's Constitution and Bylaws if you choose to reply with your address and/or a Kaiser Permanente work location to include facility name and department.
Thanks again, you're always welcome to visit our site and post questions, Local 30 experiences (good or bad) within our Forums. Please let other Members know about the site as we intend to utilize it to offer information for Members and expect to have information of interest as it relates to Local 30's upcoming, September officer nominations and elections.
Fraternally,
Dustin

Can we Review the General Membeship Meeting's Minutes Online?

2008-03-10T13:25:52Z
No.

Below is my correspondence with Elected Recording Secretary, Diane Nunez:

02/28/2008 07:01 PM
From: Dustin Teske
To Diane T Nunez
Subject: Recording Secretary
Hi Diane,
I hope all is well with you. The reason I am emailing you at this time is because one of the Members who recently contacted me via opeiu30.org inquired about access to the minutes you take during general membership meetings. I have long advocated to Walter that those be made available to Members online but he has yet to do that. I really think Members may be interested to read what goes on (and what doesn't go on) during Walter's membership meetings. Do you think it would be possible for me to receive a copy of the minutes for posting on www.OPEIU30.org?
I look forward to hearing back whether you're interested in doing this or not.
Fraternally,
Dustin

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:51:10
To: dustin.teske@sbcglobal.net
From: Diane.T.Nunez@kp.org
Subject: Re: Recording Secretary
Hello Dustin,
In rsponse to your question about the minutes, you should request that to Walter Allen in writing. I also know we will not post any offical infomationon a private opinion web site. If you should know of any member that is requesting you this information, please direct them to the union office. Hope to see you at the next meeting.
Fraternally,
Diane
Diane T. Nunez
Primary Care Bonita MOB
(619)409-6357 (tie line 281)
OPEIU Local 30
Recording Secretary/Senior Steward
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: Diane.T.Nunez@kp.org
From: "Dustin Teske"
Subject: Re: Recording Secretary
Diane,
I regret to hear of your unhelpful response and I'm sorry that the minutes you take of the meetng which are sparsely attended will almost certainly not be read by anyone. Happy note taking!
Dustin

Re: Return My Calls

2008-03-06T15:34:16Z
From: "MaryEllen Farrell"
To: "'Dustin Teske'"
Subject: RE: Return My Calls
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:15:39 -0800

Why don’t we meet and discuss these concerns then.

From: "Dustin Teske"
To: maryellen.farrell@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Return My Calls
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:23:03 -0800 (PST)

MaryEllen,
Because we have already held a lengthy meeting a few weeks ago in regards to this and, as time if valuable to all of us, I believe it would be more efficient to discuss any misunderstandings over the phone. I am not opposed to being involved in an additional meeting later, however, I do not believe having a redundant meeting would be beneficial for anyone. Please either reply via email or phone, as I have requested, in regards to OPEIU Local 30's intentions in relation to the Owens and Minor subcontracting practice. I am very interested in learning if, how and why the areas within our National Agreement and Local contract as they pertain to subcontracting (i.e. National Agreement "Exhibit 1.K.4" entitled the "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SUB-CONTRACTING") are not being applied by our Union in instances such as when Owens and Minor is performing OPEIU Local 30 Member work as well as if and when our Union will address this issue.
Please reply at your earliest convenience.
Dustin

Return My Calls

2008-03-06T10:09:26Z
MaryEllen,

I understand, during yesterday's conversation between yourself and David, it was agreed upon that he would contact me and inquire in regards to when I would be available to meet with you and He (again) to discuss the Owens and Minor issue which we had previously discussed some weeks ago. David indicated you had conveyed some confusion in regards to this issue. As I have left messages for you during the past few weeks, I am again requesting for you to contact me so that any confusion may be clarified as efficiently as possible. I simply want to know, what, if anything, OPEIU Local 30 will do to address the issue of the Owens and Minor vendor arrangement which has resulted in the elimination of some OPEIU Local 30 bargaining unit work and the loss of some full-time OPEIU Local 30 Member's positions (i.e. within the Trade Street warehouse). During the previous meeting at which David K., John Larson, yourself and I were in attendance these concerns were discussed and you committed to looking into the matter and responding to the concerns. You have not yet done this. Please do so or provide me the opportunity to address any possible confusions which may exist. To reiterate, I am requesting you to let me know what, if anything, OPEIU Local 30 will support in regards to adressing the issue of Owens and Minor performing our bargaining unit work (i.e. grievance support up to and through arbitration or will our Union quit by Step 4 of the procedure?).

Fraternally,

Dustin

Eye of the Beholder (and Subject to Timing)

2008-02-28T18:08:26Z
Dear Unrepresented, Management Editor Staff of HANK and LMPFLASH,
How interesting; Your HANK, October 2005 issue (http://www.lmpartnership.org/news/hank/media/hank_oct06.pdf) contains an article, "Light Turbulence for Stewards" in which the author, "Henretta" describes some Stewards as renegades and likens them to "snakes on [a] plane" due to undertaking such challenges as "fight[ing] losing battles". Then, within the pages of your LMPFLASH (http://www.lmpartnership.org/news/managing/strong_steward.html), you offer the article, "No Wimpy Stewards Please" where a Manager praises Stewards for their dedication and heavy involvement and purports that she wishes they were even more so involved. I get the distinct impression these articles are addressing the same Steward, only at different times; when a Steward agrees with Management, Management wishes that Steward was more involved within additional decisions, when that same Steward disagrees with Management, Management compares that Steward to a snake. [Also interesting is that Management isn't the sole perpetrator of this act, Union Office Staff sometimes treats their Union Stewards similarly]. What may be learned from this? - Sometimes we as Stewards will be called Saviors, and other times we will be called Snakes, either time we need to continue to do what we know to be right because it is right and even when one may be fighting a losing battle that that does not mean it is without merit and is sometimes all the more reason to fight.
Fraternally,
Dustin Teske
OPEIU, Local 30 Steward
www.OPEIU30.org

Re: Amendments of Concern

2008-01-25T20:10:00Z
Update on this issue;

As explained in Walter's mailing which included his initial proposed amendments to our constitution, he intended to improperly submit these amendments for a vote during the then upcoming membership meeting. This was in violation of our Constitution and Bylaws and he was made known that his misconduct by intentionally violating the laws he was attempting to re-write was noticed. Following, he 'sat' on his amendment proposals (for about a year). It wasn't until just recently, Walter sent out our Business Representatives to gather the neccessary percentage of signatures which would then permit the amendments to be introduced during a general membership meeting and then a vote to occur during the follow meeting. -Basically, he followed the rules this time.

As it stands Walter has reportedly gathered the needed signatures to introduce his proposed amendment changes. His intent was to introduce these proposals during the recent general membership meetings but was unable to entice a quorum (15 members) to show up at any one of the three, recent general membership meetings. - According to our Constitution and Bylaws, general membership meeetings with less than a quorum may only be 'informational' (there were 11 members present for the Las Angeles meeting, 14 members present for the San Diego meeting, and an unknown number of members present during the Arizona meeting).

I'm sure it will only be a matter of time until he is able to find an audience of at least 15 members to attend one of the future general membership meetings and that he will be prepared to present his proposals at each of the upcoming meetings.

In concusion, due to Walter's 'new approach' regarding this issue (in addition to his new 'fever' in regards to launching a revised and current official website), I can't help but feel just a little bit responsible and think maybe, just maybe I've done something right here.

Fraternally,
Dustin