Health Care Wars Prompt Oregon AFT Trusteeship

When leaders of a Oregon health care local—seen here in 2005 bargaining—broke procedural rules by trying to start a disaffiliation process at a special July member meeting, the AFT seized on the slip-up to boot elected leaders. AFT leaders didn’t want to risk a domino effect among the 50,000 nurses it represents. Photo: Debby Rasmussen.

Seizing on procedural grounds to stop local leaders moving rapidly to disaffiliate, the American Federation of Teachers took over an Oregon health care local in July.

The Oregon Federation of Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, a 3,000-member local mostly clustered in Kaiser Permanente hospitals, sought to leave the AFT.

Ousted leaders had floated the possibility of forming an independent union, or joining with another AFL-CIO nurse union, as an AFT local outside of Kansas City did in June. When the disaffiliation in Kansas City looked inevitable, AFT President Randi Weingarten negotiated that local’s transfer to the National Nurses Organizing Committee, a part of the California Nurses Association.

Oregon local leaders had discussed joining CNA, too, but AFT leaders weren’t about to cede another local and risk a domino effect among the other 50,000 nurses it represents. The Oregon union, Local 5017, had the AFT’s only West Coast health care membership.

When the Oregon officers broke procedural rules by trying to begin the disaffiliation at a special July member meeting, the AFT seized on the slip-up to boot elected leaders. Bing Wong, a former executive board member, said the national was looking for an excuse to bring down the hammer.

Samantha Owens, Local 5017’s former executive secretary, supported the trusteeship. She said the local rushed to disaffiliate without a full debate, and should have honored Weingarten’s request to come mediate.

It was only the fourth contested trusteeship in the AFT’s history. Trustees said no financial misappropriation is alleged.

CALIFORNIA BATTLES TRAVEL NORTH

Kathy Geroux, the ousted executive president, said there was no time to waste. (She and other ousted officers also believe the July meeting was permissible—and question why any local should be trusteed for holding a meeting for members, no matter the topic at hand.)

Geroux said the Coalition of Kaiser Unions (which coordinates negotiations among the Kaiser chain’s many unions) was pushing Local 5017 into early bargaining because of the needs of much larger unions in the coalition.

The Service Employees (SEIU), which represents 50,000 California hospital workers, want the ink dry on a new Kaiser agreement by spring 2010 in order to stave off a challenge from the insurgent National Union of Healthcare Workers, which presented petitions at dozens of Kaiser hospitals last spring.
“To go into Kaiser bargaining early would be a disaster in this economy,” Geroux said.

The local’s executive board had endorsed the move to disaffiliate, then split as plans sped from PowerPoint presentations toward a formal membership vote to proceed. The vote never took place. Disaffiliation would have required a two-thirds vote in a mail ballot.

SUPPORT LABOR NOTES

BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR

Give $10 a month or more and get our "Fight the Boss, Build the Union" T-shirt.

Owens said the local risked being kicked out of the Coalition of Kaiser Unions if it left AFT—and questioned how, standing as an independent union alone against the Kaiser juggernaut, it could expect to do better.

RUMOR MILL

Meg McGowan-Tuttle, ex-treasurer, said she and Owens asked the national to intervene because they felt used by fellow officers. “It was a con job,” she said. “We were getting railroaded.”

Officers looking to disaffiliate also feared the AFT could pull out of health care altogether—which trustees denied—and would trade away hospital locals like theirs in some national-level deal. Geroux said she was told by AFT insiders and others that SEIU could take them over. AFT’s trustee Mark Richards told members that was false, and that Oregon officers had used the rumor to whip up support for leaving.

What’s undisputed is that the national closed an expensive organizing campaign based in Local 5017 last summer and shifted resources east. Richards told members the national had poured $4 million into a drive to organize at Portland-based Legacy hospitals.

Ex-officers complain that despite the investment the campaign was ineffective at first and grew slowly. Organizers reached about 40 percent authorization cards before the national pulled the plug, embittering local leaders.

“You don’t sit in a room and say, ‘we’ll never leave’ if you’re going to,” Geroux said. “We’re the ones left with the image problem. Who’s going to believe us now?”

Calls to AFT’s national health care organizing leaders were not returned.

Toxic relationships inside the state AFT and among health care unions also poisoned the Oregon atmosphere. Ousted officers say the state AFT undermined crucial nurse issues, like legislation that would cap the number of patients each nurse is assigned.
And they were furious that they weren’t allowed into the state fed, but a rival nurse union was.

That union, the Oregon Nurses Association, isn’t affiliated to the AFL-CIO and has stood in the way of the nurse-patient ratios.

Whatever the grievances, said ex-board member Carol Posluszny, AFT should have allowed members to openly debate disaffiliation and choose their fate.

“I’m an idealist,” Posluszny said, “and to see this happen in the labor movement, which I thought was the most inspiring and democratic thing going, is disheartening. My bubble’s burst.”

A version of this article appeared in Labor Notes #366, September 2009. Don't miss an issue, subscribe today.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) | 09/21/09

This article is really disappointing for a variety of reasons, but most glaringly are the rumors presented here as facts. What kind of reporting or journalism is this? Did you simply interview Kathy Geroux and take everything she said as fact? Can you verify that OFNHP had 40% cards signed on the Legacy organizing campaign? I don't think so, because I worked on that campaign as an organizer and they never once asked a single nurse to sign an authorization card. There were NO cards signed at all. Rather, a petition was circulated and by no stretch of the imagination could you say 40% of the nurses signed it. That simply is not true, yet it is reported here as a fact. That is just one of many many inaccuracies in this article. Opinions on the issue aside, this is such embarrassingly poor journalism that I feel embarrassed for Labor Notes.