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

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