City and County of San Francisco

Download the San Francisco City and County CBA 2014-2017

SF_Contracts SFContractFightUpdates-03 SFContractFightUpdates-03

Notice of SEIU 1021 SF Housing Authority Bargaining Team Election

seiu-sfhousingauthority

The current contract between SEIU 1021 and the SF Housing Authority expires on June 30, 2017.

We are bracing for a fight for fair wages, better working conditions, and quality public services. Our first step is to complete Bargaining Team elections by January 5, 2017 so we have ample time for member surveys, training, research, writing proposals and negotiations.

Take the first step and be part of the Bargaining Team.

Download a PDF copy of this notice and the nomination form

Notice of Election and Nominations: DEC. 7 – DEC. 21
Posting of Eligible Candidates and Campaigning: DEC. 22 – DEC. 29
Eligible candidates’ names will be posted on www.sffight.org. The exact date, time & location of voting will also be posted on Union bulletin boards at your work site.
Voting & Vote Count at Membership Meeting: JAN. 5
Votes will be cast and ballots will be counted on Jan. 5 at the SF Union Office, 350 Rhode Island Avenue #100. The results of the elected Bargaining Team members and alternates will be announced.

Did you like this? Share it:

SFMTA Service Critical 2017 Bargaining Team Election Results

PCO Chapter:

8214s
1st Seat: Trevor Adams
2nd Seat: Carzell Browne

8216s
Abraham (Abe) Dabis

PCO alternates:
8214 – Sterling Haywood
8216 – Dominic Garrett

Transit Car Cleaners:

9102 – Evelyn Curiel
9104 – Myra Phillips

Transit Car Cleaner alternates:
9102 – Bryan James
9104 – (Vacant)

Fare Collections/Revenue:

Seat: 9110 – Anthony Hale
Alternate: 9110 – Michael Wiles

The following delegates are uncontested and were nominated without election

Station Agent Chapter:

9131 – Jason Thompson
9131 – Shalana Willis

Permits & Citations:

9606
Seat: Nicole Christian
Alternate: (Vacant)

At-Large:

1937 – Melvin Brown

5 working days to contest election results: If you would like to contest the results of the election, you must do so by submitting your complaint via email to: SFMTAelectioncommittee@seiu1021.org or by fax to: 415.431.6241. Your contest of the election’s results must be received Tuesday 11/29/16 by 5pm.

> >Download a PDF copy of the election results notice

Did you like this? Share it:

SFMTA Service Critical Bargaining Team Election Nominees

As we approach our next round of negotiations, we’re taking the first steps and electing our Bargaining Team. Bargaining Team elections will be held from Nov. 14 to Nov. 18. Don’t miss the opportunity to vote and elect your Bargaining Team representative.

SFMTA Service Critical Bargaining Team Election Nominees
First Name Last Name Parking Control Officers : 3 Delegates & 2 Alternates Dept/Worksite
Trevor Adams 8214 PCO Enforcement
Carzell Browne 8214 PCO Enforcement
Michael Casagrande 8214 PCO Enforcement
Sterling Haywood 8214 PCO Enforcement
Cynthia Hopkins 8214 PCO Enforcement
William Kettle 8214 PCO Enforcement
Michael Krywokulsky 8214 PCO Enforcement
Claudia Wu 8214 PCO Enforcement
Michael Young 8214 PCO Enforcement
Abraham Dabis 8216 Senior PCO Enforcement
Dominic Garret 8216 Senior PCO Enforcement
First Name Last Name Transit Car Cleaners: 2 Delegates & 2 Alternates Dept/Worksite
Tanya Brown 9102 Transit Car Cleaner Woods Division
Evelyn Curiel 9102 Transit Car Cleaner Potrero
Brian James 9102 Transit Car Cleaner Presidio
Charles Whitbeck Jr. 9102 Transit Car Cleaner Potrero
Myra Phillips 9104 Transit Car Cleaner Asst. Sup. Flynn
First Name Last Name Fare Collection: 1 Delegate & 1 Alternate Dept/Worksite
Anthony Hale 9110 Fare Collections Receiver Fare Collection
Michael Wiles 9110 Fare Collections Receiver Fare Collection
The following delegates are uncontested and no election is necessary.
First Name Last Name Permit and Citation: 1 Delegate & 1 Alternate Dept/Worksite
Nicole Christian 9606 Sr. Permit & Citation Clerk Permits & Citations
First Name Last Name At- Large: 1 Delegate Dept/Worksite
Melvin Brown 1937 Sup Parts Storekeeper Muni Metro East
First Name Last Name Station Agents: 2 Delegates Dept/Worksite
Jason Thompson 9131 Station Agent Extra Board
Shalana Willis 9131 Station Agent Van Ness Station

 Voting Schedule and Location:

Date Time Location
Mon., Nov. 14, 2016 2:00pm-4:00pm 2323 Cesar Chavez Street
Tues., Nov. 15, 2016 6am-5pm 505 7th Street (Conference room)
Wed., Nov. 16, 2016 7:00am-5:00pm Van Ness Muni Station
Thur, Nov. 17, 2016 6:00am-12:00pm Woods Division (Lobby)
Alternate Voting Site:
Date Time Location
Nov. 14-Nov. 18 9am-5pm SEIU 1021 Office 350 Rhode Island St., Ste. 100 South

 

Vote count: SF Union Hall-Monday, Nov. 21st at Noon

If you have questions or concerns, please contact the SFMTA Service Critical Election Committee at: SFMTAElectionCommittee@seiu1021.org or call the Member Resource Center at 1-877-OUR-1021.

2017 SFMTA Service Critical Election Committee
Theresa Rutherford, Robbin Boykin, and Alicia Evans

Did you like this? Share it:

Results of the 2017 SF City-Wide Bargaining Team Elections (As of Oct. 28, 2016)

2017 SF Citywide Bargaining Team Tie Breaker Results – Hall of Justice

Per the Election Committee’s rule about a tie among candidates, Hall of Justice members Patricia Cuellar and Danielle Thompson participated in a  draw by lot at the SF Union Office on October 27, 2016. The results are that Patricia Cuellar is the Delegate and Danielle Thompson is the Alternate for the Hall of Justice Chapter.

Download the results of the tie breaker (PDF)

The following are your new SF Citywide Bargaining Team Delegates for 2017

Download the information (PDF)

CHAPTER DELEGATE(S) ALTERNATE
First Name Last Name First Name Last Name
311 (1 team mbr) Peter O’Brien Shalcomont Jacobs
911 (1 team mbr) Sean Dryden Karen Colindres
SFO Airport (4 team mbrs) Lynn Menicucci Jonray Woolbright
Jeffrey Johnson
Carlos Chicas
Nicholas Evangelista
Museum Civil Service (1 team mbr) Raina Johnson Raphael Goins

Child Support Services

(1 team mbr)

Blesilda Ocampo Paul Camarillo
Civic Center (6 team mbrs) Carmanella Heard Harold Powell
Luz Charito Casanas
Deborah Walter-­‐Rosas
Judith Starbuck (Sorro)
Christopher Corgas
Janice Wong

Community Public Health

(2 team mbrs)

Dellfinia Hardy Alicia Leon Jhong
Brandon Dawkins
DPW (1 team mbr) No nominees
Hall of Justice (1 team mbr) Patricia Cuellar  Danielle Thompson

Human Services Agency

(5 team mbrs)

Michael Bynum Irvin Lazo
Edlyn Kloefkorn
Selina Keene
Dana Le Grande
Victor Medrano

Adult & Childrens Services, H.S.A.

(2 team mbrs)

Arlette Smith David K Valdeolivar
Tamisha Mouton

Laguna Honda Hospital

(4 team mbrs)

Dickson Adetuyi Gary Sakita
Julia Rosaroso
Juan Diaz
Debra Dobson
Library, LEUC (2 team mbrs) Emmanuel Mabry Patrick Conway
Vanessa Hardy
Library, Guild (1 team mbr) Eric Hannan Melissa Riley
Mental Health (1 team mbr) Rosa Lutrario Ellen Zhou

 

CHAPTER DELEGATE(S) ALTERNATE
First Name Last Name First Name Last Name
Moccasin, PUC (1 team mbr) Ken Brewer Elizabeth Lilley
MTA/MUNI (2 team mbrs) Francis Sandner Milton Hernandez
Jerry Leung
Port of SF (1 team mbr) Joseph Reilly Anita Yao

Public Utilities Commission

(1 team mbr)

Kathy Basconcillo Constance Smith
Rec & Park (4 team mbrs) Yanghong (Fiona) Tan Marcus Santiago
Don Franklin
David K Wong
Marcos Tapia
SF Sheriff’s Dept.(1 team mbr) Marisol Pastran Danielle Dillard
SFGH & IPO’s (6 team mbrs) Brenda Barros Roberto Manahan
Sandeep Lal
Mandana Siyadat
Derrick Armstrong
John Wadsworth
Pamela Wilson
YGC Classified (1 team mbr) Henrietta Lee
YGC Counselors (1 team mbr) Marcus D. Mackey Tarik Winston

* The Election Committee has decided that in the event that there is a tie among the candidates, a draw by lot will be used to determine the outcome. This will be witnessed by the affected members.

Challenge/Protest: Any challenge or protest concerning the conduct of this election or election results must be submitted in writing, with specific facts setting forth the challenge or protest, and must be received by the Election Committee within five (5) working days of the posting of the election results. You may contact the Election Committee via email at: sfcitywide.election.committee@seiu1021.org; via fax at (415) 431-­‐6241 or you may drop off a letter in person at the Union Office to the attention of the Election Committee at 350 Rhode Island St., Suite 100 South, SF (between 16th & 17th Sts.).

Challenges to the election will be considered only if they cite specific violations of the SF Citywide Bargaining Team Election Rules and/or election rules and procedures outlined under the SEIU 1021 Bylaws and if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election. The Election Committee shall decide on the action to be taken, subject to the appellate process of this Union.

 

Did you like this? Share it:

Notice of SFMTA – Service Critical Bargaining Team Elections

The current contract between SEIU 1021 and SF MTA for the Service Critical units expires on June 30, 2017.

We are bracing for a fight for fair wages, better working conditions, and quality public services.

Our first step is to complete Bargaining Team elections by November 18, 2016 so we have ample time for member surveys, training, research, writing proposals and negotiations.

Timeline
Sept. 26 – Oct. 21: Notice of Election and Nominations
Oct. 24 – Nov. 18 – Posting of Eligible Candidates and Campaigning
Nov. 21 – Vote Count

VOTING TIMES & LOCATIONS
Nov. 14 – 2323 Cesar Chavez Street | 2PM – 4PM
Nov. 15 – 505 7th Street (Conference room) | 6 AM – 5PM
Nov. 16 – Van Ness Station | 7AM – 5 PM
Nov. 17 – Woods Division (Lobby) | 6 AM – Noon
Nov. 14 – Nov. 18– SEIU 1021 Union Hall –
350 Rhode Island, South Building, Suite 100
Monday through Friday | 9 AM – 5 PM

Download a PDF flyer of the Bargaining Team Election Notice

Did you like this? Share it:

San Francisco Retirement Restoration Pay (RRP)

San Francisco Retirement Restoration Pay

This webpage was set up to provide information about 114 San Francisco City & County retirees who the Union believes were eligible for, but did not receive a portion of their monthly pension: up to 4.62%. When SEIU 1021 agreed in our 2010 contract bargaining to take a 4.62% cut in pay for 2 years — July 2010 thru June 2012, the City agreed to set up a process so that anyone who retired and would have their pension reduced because of that cut in pay could get back the 4.62% and thus not suffer a cut in their pension.

Please read the letter and Question & Answer sheet below to understand what should have happened, and what we have set up with the City to fix it for those who did not receive the Retirement Restoration Pay at the time of retirement.  We have provided the letter and Q&A in English, Spanish and Chinese.

Retiree Restoration Pay Letter – Chinese

Retiree Restoration Pay Letter – English

Retiree Restoration Pay Letter – Spanish

 

 

 

Did you like this? Share it:

Contra Costa Unites for a Unity Break

COCO

Hundreds of 1021 members across Contra Costa poured onto the front of County buildings to demand a fair contract that emphasizes wages that are sustainable, increased safety measures and healthcare that working families can afford. The Unity Break was held at Delta Fair, Ellinwood and Cavallo sites at 10:21 a.m.

Members also signed petitions calling on the Board of Supervisors and County negotiators to bargain in good faith. The key bargaining proposals focus on the need for sustainable wages for workers, affordable healthcare and a demand to address the ongoing violence members face at the worksites, and in the field.

In the recent past, violence has erupted on County property and workers continue to express a need for safety for themselves, for their clients and for the public that visit County facilities.

The bargaining team is committed to the negotiation process and securing a contract that addresses the needs of employees and the community.

 

Did you like this? Share it:

Hello. 9-1-1. Please hold.

911 ActionCould anything be more disturbing and incongruous than calling emergency and be told to wait?  Seconds matter in the kind of life-and-death situations 911 dispatchers face all day every day. But chronic understaffing at San Francisco’s Emergency Communications makes this an all too common occurrence, jeopardizing the safety of the city’s residents and visitors.

“We are mandated to respond within 10 seconds, but when we can’t, it’s scary,” said Burt Wilson, president of the dispatchers’ union chapter. San Francisco has a $9 billion budget and should be able to provide basic public safety services, but for the last three years the city has not properly funded 911 services.
Currently the Emergency Communications Dept. has 118 dispatchers when full staffing requires 180. So existing staff is mandated to put in 100-150 hours of overtime every 24 hours.  All that overtime, routinely working 12, 14 and even 16-hour shifts on an already face-paced and stressful job, is burning out dispatchers.  And the extreme fatigue those kind of hours produce can lead to dangerous errors when split second decisions need to be made.  The city just hired 15 new dispatchers, but it takes nine months to a year to train them.
 
“People are leaving faster than we can replace them. We’ve lost 30 people in the last two years,” said Cathy Osorio, a dispatcher and union chief steward.  “At this rate we will never catch up to where we need to be.  We are devoted to our jobs and understand how essential our work is to the community, but this is not a sustainable model.”
As the Board of Supervisors is deciding the city’s budget for the next year, the 911 dispatchers and their union, SEIU 1021, are held an emergency rally, Thursday, May 12 to draw attention to this vital public safety issue.
Did you like this? Share it:

Nurses and Healthcare Professionals Alert Public of Chronic Understaffing and Title 22 Staffing Ratio Violations in SFDPH

SFGH-SafeStaffingRally022516

Informational Picket Educates Public on Problem of Understaffing at San Francisco General Hospital and San Francisco Department of Public Health

Could Potentially Compromise Delivery of Care and Patient Safety as Health Research Demonstrates Nurse Understaffing Leads to Worse Patient Outcomes

Registered nurses, Nursing Assistants, Radiology Techs, and other healthcare workers gathered outside General Hospital on Thursday, February 25 to ring the alarm bell for the public about chronic understaffing and Title 22 violations occurring across SF Department of Public facilities.

Although San Francisco is on the verge of opening a new hospital building, the healthcare workers will report on the ongoing and unaddressed issue of understaffing.

For example, when nurses are on their legally-mandated breaks, they utilize a buddy system which puts them and the hospital out of compliance with Title 22 Staffing Ratio Laws. During break time, this buddy system could potentially place 1 nurse responsible for up to 10 patients, depending on the unit they work on.

Another example of short staffing occurs in the radiology department. San Francisco General is a Level 1 trauma center that relies heavily on the radiology department to perform imaging in a timely manner. Understaffing in this department could lead to a delay in care, and every minute counts for trauma patients.

Did you like this? Share it:

VOTE for Working People! San Francisco Endorsements 2015

San Francisco is at a turning point, and this election could lay the groundwork for us to take back our city! Make sure your coworkers know how to cut through the mailers and misinformation this election season and vote for a better city for working people.

Register to vote by Tuesday, October 19!
Vote by mail or in person by Tuesday, November 3!

hererra-weiss

Mayor: Ranked Choice

1. Francisco Herrera

2. Amy Farah-Weiss

Supervisor District 3: Aaron Peskin

Sheriff: Ross Mirkarimi


City College Board: Tom Temprano

Local Ballot Propositions

A

Housing Bond

No position. The bond will provide $310 million for affordable housing. It requires a 2/3 vote. SEIU 1021 took a NO POSITION because of the negative impacts on contracting out of work.

B – YES

Paid Parental Leave for City Workers

Allows both parents, when both work for the City, to take the maximum allowable paid parental leave.

C – NO

Expenditure Lobbyists

This measure would interfere with our advocacy for worker issues and force disclosure of bargaining positions during contract negotiations.

D – YES

Mission Rock Development

40% Affordable Housing

E – NO

Requirements for Public Meetings

Unfairly advantages companies with money to prepare video testimony

F – YES

Short Term Residential Rentals

Allow the City to enforce regulations on ad-hoc hotels

G – NO

Disclosures Regarding Renewable Energy

This measure was introduced before Measure H. Measure H is the compromise between all parties.

H – YES

Defining Clean, Green, and Renewable Energy

Supports renewable energy plans in SF.

I – YES

Suspension of Market-Rate Development in the Mission District

Support sustainable, affordable development

J – YES

Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund

Support small, local business owners

K – YES

Surplus Public Lands

Prioritize affordable housing when the City sells property

 

Did you like this? Share it:

San Francisco Nonprofit Workers Win 5% Raise Over 2 Years

SF nonprofit workers came to City Hall on April 22 to tell the Board of Supervisors why we need a long-term solution to the chronic funding shortfalls to nonprofits--and a meaningful increase in the interim.

SF nonprofit workers came to City Hall on April 22 to tell the Board of Supervisors why we need a long-term solution to the chronic funding shortfalls to nonprofits–and a meaningful increase in the interim.

The past several years have been challenging for San Francisco nonprofits, to say the least.

The fight to restore funding lost during the Great Recession has been bitter each year, culminating in nominal increases and–in last year’s case–broken promises from the Board of Supervisors to provide supplemental funding in the case of a budget surplus.

Each year, the mayor has shortchanged nonprofits in his budget, leaving us to fight for crumbs during the “add-back process,” by which the Supervisors allocate additional funding with whatever is left after their changes to the mayor’s proposed budget.

This process has not served nonprofits—or their workers—well. We got 2% in 2012 after years of flat funding, but only 1.5% per year for the following two years.

This year, we requested a meaningful cost-of-living increase over two years to make sure we can start catching up with the skyrocketing cost of living while we work together with the Controller, nonprofit employers and the Board of Supervisors to identify in the newly formed working group we advocated for in April to identify a long-term solution to the chronic nonprofit funding woes.

With the City coffers in better shape than they have been in a long time, and pressure early on from nonprofit workers, City Hall was not eager for another fight from us and allocated an additional 2.5% (about $12.5 million) in funding to nonprofits per year for the next two years.

The Board of Supervisors and the Controller intend for that increase to be passed through to the nonprofit workers. We will now work to make sure that happens and that nonprofit workers get the raises they so desperately need and richly deserve!

Did you like this? Share it:

Labor Advocates Cheer Progress of Bay Area’s Minimum Wage Campaigns

San Francisco Starts Path to $15 May 1, Votes Upcoming in Emeryville (May 5) and Berkeley (June) 

San Francisco–More than 142,000 workers are expected to eventually earn a raise as San Francisco’s minimum wage starts rising towards $15, with the first increase to $12.25 occurring on May 1. Joining San Francisco on the path to $15 are the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley, which will hold votes on May 5, and sometime in June, respectively, as their cities look to raise their own minimum wages.

This momentum comes on the heels of Oakland implementing what is currently the highest wage in the nation, at $12.25, and after national protests on behalf of fast-food workers and other low-wage workers, including in the Bay Area on April 15 when thousands of local workers protested in the streets to demand economic justice.

“The fast-food workers have been an incredible inspiration in the fight for $15,” said Alysabeth Alexander, SEIU 1021’s Vice President of Politics. “They have sparked a mass movement on behalf of all the low-wage workers in our society. This economy is not working for everyday workers. We need to fight for $15, raise the minimum wage, and treat workers with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

“We are winning the Bay Area’s fight for $15. The Bay Area is moving to develop the first regional standard in the county for wages and working conditions,” said Gary Jimenez, SEIU 1021’s Vice President for the East Bay. “San Francisco and Oakland have set the standard, now it’s time to expand to Berkeley, Richmond, Emeryville, and beyond.”

San Francisco and Oakland voters overwhelming approved raises in the Minimum Wage last November. Proposition J in San Francisco won with 78% and Measure FF in Oakland won with 82%. The two initiatives were each originally filed by a coalition of SEIU 1021, community-based organizations, and fellow labor unions.

The Bay Area initiatives will benefit 190,000 workers, and add nearly $500 million in consumer spending power to the local economy, according to research by the UC Berkeley Center on

Labor and Employment Research. Prop J raises San Francisco’s Minimum Wage to $15 in 2018, and Measure FF raises Oakland’s Minimum Wage to $12.25 in 2015, each indexed to inflations. More than half of workers of color will get a raise.

Emeryville’s proposal will be considered on first reading by the City Council, and calls for a minimum wage of nearly $16 by 2019, with workers at major employers like big-box retail stores earning an immediate jump to $14.42. The proposal also guarantees paid sick days for workers, protects tips, and ensures wage increases alongside inflation. Berkeley’s Labor Commission in June will bring the City Council a proposal to raise its minimum wage to $15.99 by 2017, with community allies proposing a 2016 ballot initiative if that is unsuccessful.

SEIU 1021 will continue working with community groups in the dozens of other Bay Area cities considering raising their wage.

The proponent of Measure FF is Lift Up Oakland (www.LiftUpOakland.org) and the proponent of Proposition J is the Campaign for a Fair Economy (www.RaiseUpSF.org). Lift Up The East Bay is sponsoring Emeryville’s proposal, while Berkeley’s is sponsored by a coalition of labor and community activists.

 

Did you like this? Share it:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: SEIU 1021 CONVENTION 2015

SEIU 1021 CONVENTION 2015

Oakland Airport Hilton, September 26-27

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

For the latest updates, go to: www.1021convention.org

The convention will be a transformative event, where members will gain greater clarity, energy, motivation and direction to step more fully into their power, with grace, vision, courage and knowledge. This is an opportunity for chapter building, engaging and developing potential leaders, hence making it a priority for staff and elected officers.

Q: What are the qualifications to be a delegate?

A: To be eligible, a member would have to had paid dues for any 4 months in 2014 as well as either January or February, 2015.


Q: Can fee payers participate in the nomination and/or delegate election process?

A: Yes, once they sign a membership form, then they can nominate and vote.

 

 Q: How many delegates can each Chapter elect?

A: Every Chapter gets 2 delegates automatically. After 300 members, each chapter will have 2 additional delegates. For every additional 150 members, a chapter will have 2 additional delegates.

 

Q: What is the period of time for completing elections?

A: April 20-July 20, 2015

 

Q: What is an “uncontested ballot”? (Previously referred to as “white ballot”)

A: When there are more or an equal number of delegate slots as candidates, that is referred to as a uncontested ballot and the chapter does not need to hold a full election.

 

Q: How are alternate delegates selected?

A: In case a delegate can’t participate due to scheduling, illness, etc. Chapters should select alternates even if the delegate election for that Chapter is uncontested or the Chapter does not elect the full number of delegates which it is entitled to.

Here are the rules for selecting alternates: All Chapters are encouraged to select at least two (2) alternates. Alternates need to be ranked by votes received (e.g. the highest vote total becomes Alternate #1, second highest voted becomes Alternate #2, etc.)

In Chapters with “uncontested ballots” (where there are more or an equal number of delegate slots as there are candidates, thus making an election unnecessary), Chapters are still encouraged to select up to two (2) alternates and designate these as Alternate #1 & #2.

Convention Delegates, who become ineligible or unable to attend, shall notify the 1021 Convention Election Committee in writing no later than 8/20/15. An Alternate or Alternates will then be credentialed and seated. Delegates who notify the 1021 Convention Election Committee after 8/20/15 will not be replaced by an alternate.

Q: Which chapters may select honorary delegates? How will honorary delegates be selected?

A:Workers who have recently organized with Local 1021, but who have not ratified their first collective bargaining agreement may select honorary delegates.  The process for selecting honorary delegates will be as follows:  two (2) honorary delegates will be elected at upcoming membership meetings.

 

If you are a Delegate:

Q: How will delegates register for the convention?

A:  Once the delegate certification form is turned in, the delegate will be sent a welcome letter by e-mail and mail which gives them directions on how to register.  (That is why it is critical that their contact information is on certification form).

 

Q: Do we pay lost time for delegates attending the Convention?

A: Yes, follow the local’s lost time policy. Anyone working from 12:01am on Saturday through 11:59pm on Sunday will receive lost time.

For example: If a delegate works anytime on Saturday or Sunday they may request lost time. So for instance if a member has a shift that starts 11pm on Friday September 25th but goes to 7am Saturday the 26th they may request the time off for their Friday shift and they would receive lost time per the guidelines specified in the policy.

 

Q: What are the rules around Friday night hotel stays for delegates?

A: Delegateswho travel 75 miles or more (one way) are qualified for Friday night lodging. All Delegates are entitled to Saturday night lodging (there is no required miles to qualify).

 

Q: What are the rules around the hotel stay on Saturday evening?

A: All delegates are encouraged to stay at the hotel regardless of how close they live to the venue. The local will pay the cost for double occupancy. Depending on room availability, they may request a single room but would need to pay the additional costs.

 

Did you like this? Share it:

March is Women’s History Month

(This story  was first published in The 1021 Voice, a newsletter for SEIU 1021 stewards and officers in San Francisco.)

By Larry Bradshaw, San Francisco Vice President

March is Women’s History Month. SEIU 1021 celebrates the contribution of women to our Union and to the struggles for social, economic and racial justice.

A strong union has literally paid off for women workers.  Women in unions earn higher wages, have better health care coverage, more rights to paid sick leave and vacation, pension plans and more rights and power on the job.

Women union members make $2.00 an hour more than non-union women workers.  The difference for women of color is even bigger with union women making 35% more than non-union women workers. Union women workers are 19% more likely to have employer health insurance and 25% more likely to have a pension.

In San Francisco, the union wage differential is even higher thanks to pay equity legislation our union helped pass in the 1980s. SEIU partnered with women’s rights organizations and the community to pass the strongest pay equity law in the nation covering both gender and racial equity.

Given the economic advantage of union women workers, it’s not surprising that the enemies of labor and equality are out to decimate unions. There are those who want to roll back the gains women workers have made. This has included several San Francisco Mayors and some in city government today.

Throughout history women have helped build the Labor Movement, often against difficult odds. Today in SEIU 1021, hundreds of women members continue that tradition by serving as Shop Stewards, Chapter Leaders, COPE delegates and Local Officers. SEIU 1021 celebrates the contributions of SEIU women to our Union and to our movement.

For more information about the history of women workers, see:

http://www.pay-equity.org/

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

http://www.afscme.org/for-members/womens-leadership-training/leadership-tools/body/Women_in_Labor_History_Timeline.pdf

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17050/the_mother_of_all_strikes

http://www.aflcio.org/About/Our-History/Key-People-in-Labor-History/Mother-Jones-1837-1930

http://www.cluw.org/

Did you like this? Share it:

SFERS moves toward fossil fuel divestment

At the urging of SEIU 1021 members, local environmentalists and the Board of Supervisors, the trustees of the San Francisco city workers’ pension fund moved a step closer towards divesting it of money in climate-changing fossil fuel industries. It also moved the city unions closer to investing their retirement savings with social responsibility, to use their collective money for the good of workers and the world.

This latest action by the San Francisco Employees Retirement System (SFERS) Board of Trustees, who oversee the pension fund for San Francisco city and county workers, is part of long road to change the world from fossil fuel dependency to sustainable energy practices. Spurred by the climate activists of Fossil Free San Francisco and 350, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution in April 2013 urging the SFERS board to move toward divesting its pension fund from fossil fuels. In February 2014 the SFERS board voted to move to what is known as Level 1 of divestment, using SFERS shareholder voting rights to reflect its position against fossil fuels.

Not surprisingly, little came from this timid action. So climate and SEIU 1021 activists pushed for the board to move onto Level 2 of divestment, actively promoting its anti-fossil fuel position individually or in concert with other shareholders to influence corporate actions and policies.

At the public comment of the SFERS board meeting March 11 Supervisor John Avalos, who has been leading the fossil fuel divestment issue on the Board of Supervisors, urged the SFERS board to vote unanimously to move to Level 2. He noted the two years the issue has been being discussed and how little movement there has been to stop the global warming trend.

“There is some urgency here,” Avalos said.

Retired SEIU 1021 public nurse Martha Hawthorne presented a resolution passed by SEIU 1021’s San Francisco COPE committee calling on the SFERS board to:
1) immediately cease any new investments in fossil fuel
companies or in commingled assets that include holdings in fossil fuel companies
2) invest in fossil fuel free assets such as renewable energy, clean technology, and sustainable communities
3) adopt Level II immediately and make a determination whether such engagement has the prospect of success at the end of 18 months
4) ensure that within three to five years none of its directly held or commingled assets include holdings in fossil fuel public equities and/or corporate bonds.

Herb Mieberger, a former SEIU 1021 member and the city workers’ representative on the SFERS board for 23 years, moved that the board adopt Level 2. The board voted 6-1 in favor of the motion.

Did you like this? Share it:

San Francisco: City workers flood City Hall to protest use of thumbprints to clock in

Protect our privacy

Above photo by the SF Examiner–See more photos here.


(Tuesday, Feb 24, 2015) — Hundreds of San Francisco City Workers from across departments gathered at SF City Hall to protest the use of their thumbprints and a biometric time clock at SF Museums. Workers stormed SF City Hall and delivered hundreds of signed petitions to Ed Lee and the SF Board of Supervisors to protect their personal information from cyber hacking and third party contractors.

The use of a biometric time clock at SF Museums raises big trust and privacy issues for SF employees. City employees are demanding an end to using a person’s thumbprint to record when they come in and when they leave work. Workers believe its intrusive and not needed.

“We are not opposed to a time clock, just a biometric one.  We would agree to use a swipe card to clock in, which is possible with the devices the Corporation of the Fine Arts Museum (COFAM) already has installed,” said Larry Bradshaw, SFFD Paramedic and SF Vice President of SEIU 1021.

City workers are asking Mayor Ed Lee to not implement the biometric time clock it exposes employees to cyber hacking.  Workers throughout the city believe the use of biometric time clocks could spread citywide to all city workers and could open the floodgates to more invasions of workers’ privacy and prone to cyber hacking.

Last year alone, Best Buy, Target, AT&T, Sony and the U.S. Department of Defense were all hacked, resulting in the theft of working people’s private and personal information. These breaches have put the personal information of millions of Americans at risk, compromising everything from addresses and birth dates to Social Security numbers.

“We have a personal responsibility to protect our sensitive information from cyber hackers and we should all be cautious of the potential risks involved with sharing personal information with third parties. Hackers can open fake credit lines, file false tax returns and create fake medical records and forge fake passports. Hacking of our personal and private information is the biggest threat to our financial security,” said Bradshaw

Many employers are concerned about hackers getting into the system and stealing that information once they have the fingerprint.

Jill Bronfman with UC Hastings College of the Law told ABC 7 that it is possible to steal someone’s identity with their thumbprint.

“It has happened. It could actually recreate someone’s identity and access their place of employment, their bank records anything that is using their laptop and using fingerprinting identification for the person,” said Jill Bronfman with UC Hastings College of the Law.

Event Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/89592077@N08/sets/72157650626868280/

Press Clips
ABC 7: http://abc7news.com/careers/sf-museum-workers-protest-thumbprint-time-clock/533246/

KRON Morning News: http://tinyurl.com/kthj9uq

KRON Evening News: http://tinyurl.com/nvtfase

SF Weekly: http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/02/24/fine-arts-museums-threaten-workers-information-security-union-says

SF Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/city-workers-protest-for-privacy/Slideshow?oid=2921207

KPFA radio: http://youtu.be/C3if8tUUSSk

KGO Radio: http://www.kgoradio.com/common/page.php?id=112652

CBS San Francisco: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/24/san-francisco-museum-employees-protest-use-of-thumbprints-to-clock-in-and-out-of-work/

KCBS: http://tinyurl.com/lezl6w6

Did you like this? Share it:

ABC 7 (VIDEO): SF Museum Workers Protest Thumbprint Time Clock

Tuesday, February 24, 2015 06:14PM

City employees who work at the fine arts museums in San Francisco stormed City Hall Tuesday to protest a biometric time clock that will soon keep track of when then come in and out. This raises big trust and privacy issues for employees.

City employees who work at the museums were joined by fellow union members demanding an end to using a person’s thumbprint to record when they come in and when they leave work.

The De Young Museum and the Legion of Honor have had the system in place for non-city employees since 2013 and suspended it for those city employees who are union members. But now they want to reinstate it for all.

“They can’t trust us and we’re security, we take care of the building, the artwork and patrons and staff,” said employee Rayna Johnson.

See it here: ABC 7

Did you like this? Share it:

SF workers block pension investment in hedge funds — mostly

For some eight months SEIU 1021 San Francisco City and County workers campaigned against having any part of their $20 billion pension fund invested in high-risk hedge funds. But at its Feb. 11 meeting, the trustees of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System (SFERS), who oversee that retirement money, voted to put 5% of it into that controversial investment.

“This is really a victory for us, even if only a partial one,” said David Williams, president of SEIU 1021’s West Bay Retirees chapter, noting that the original proposal was for a 15% investment. “Our members’ actions reduced their exposure to hedge fund risks by two thirds. And even what’s left has hurdles to get over before it’s done.”

SEIU 1021 members packed five of the SFERS board’s monthly meetings and many of them spoke passionately and informatively against having their retirement savings put into risky investments. They also collected nearly 3,000 signatures of retired and active members on a petition against the proposal.

Hedge funds are aggressively managed portfolios of unregulated investments. They trade high risk in an attempt to get high returns.

The pressure had made the staff’s 15% proposal untenable, so pro-hedge fund trustee Brian Stansbury proposed only a 5% investment. Again some 30 members spent hours testifying at the meeting, hammering the proposal as not only too volatile for a pension fund needing stability to make monthly payments, but also too costly to administer, and lacking in transparency for members to know what is being invested in.

But when the vote was finally officially taken sometime well into the meeting’s fifth hour, the trustees went 6-1 for the 5% proposal. Only Herb Meiberger, a former SEIU member and the union’s elected representative on the board for the last 23 years, voted against it.

“One of the good things that came out of this is that we have many members mobilized and asking questions about where the money is going,” said Martha Hawthorne, a retired SEIU 1021 public health nurse working with Fossil Free San Francisco, a group trying to keep public investment out of climate changing fossil fuels. “Hedge funds aren’t the only bad investments here.”

Nearly lost in the hedge fund controversy, the board also changed its entire “asset allocation” formula, how it divides its investment money. The new asset allocation plan increases private equity investments to 18% from 16% and real estate assets to 17% from 12%. Global equity will be reduced to 40% from 47%, and fixed income to 20% from 25%.

Of concern to local activists was the allotment of $150 million of the increased real estate portfolio to Blackstone, the single largest holder of residential rental housing in the country and renowned for buying up rental units, jacking up the rents and evicting long-term tenants.

Left undecided in the board’s decision is the question of who will operate SFERS’ hedge fund investments. Will it be yet-to-be-hired SFERS in house staff or a contracted out hedge fund management firm?

There are arguments both ways. Keeping the work in house should allow for more transparency and control over whether the investments go into fossil fuels and anti-union firms or not. But it also raises the issue of creating an internal infrastructure and self-perpetuating bureaucracy invested in continuing in hedge funds. If this “experiment” in hedge funds goes wrong, it will be that much harder to jettison the program.

“This is the time for ‘due diligence’” said Jon Meade, a retired SEIU 1021 paramedic working on issue. “Who gets our $1 billion and how does that decision get vetted?”

In any event, it will take the SFERS board anywhere from one to two years to put all the pieces together and actually invest the money.

“This is just the beginning,” Williams said. “There is still staff to hire, infrastructure to put in place and questions about the transparency on how all this will be done. The guidelines for all this should have been worked out before the decision was made, not after.”

“We have a lot more work to do to get this board in line,” Williams added.

Did you like this? Share it:

San Francisco: City workers halt vote to invest their pensions in risky hedge funds

San Francisco city workers mobilized last week and delayed the city’s retirement board yet again from handing over their pension fund to corporate speculators, keeping alive the hope of stopping the transfer once and for all.

The city workers packed the San Francisco Public Employees Retirement System’ Board of Trustees meeting room to standing room only Dec. 4, as they have for the last several monthly meetings, with dozens signing up to speak at its public comment period. The only topic of this special meeting: How to invest the pension’s funds and whether to invest any of it into high-risk hedge funds — aggressively managed portfolios of unregulated investments — in an attempt to get high returns.

Since the time that the SFERS staff first proposed to the Trustees last summer that they add hedge funds to the pension portfolio, SEIU 1021 retirees and actives have intervened in opposition, claiming that as the contributors to the fund and its intended beneficiaries, their voice on these matters should be heard and heeded.

The case against hedge funds

At this latest meeting members arrived with nearly 2,000 signatures on a petition demanding no investment of the pension funds in hedge funds. And during the public comment session they hammered away at their criticisms of hedge fund investments.

Hedge funds are too high risk for a pension fund that so many are depending on for their retirement, SEIU 1021 members claimed. They cited George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and hedge fund pioneer, who said that hedge funds were too risky an investment for pension funds.

They derided hedge funds’ the low rate of return, citing billionaire Warren Buffet saying simple investment in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index would uniformly out perform hedge funds many times over. They cited the fact that CalPERS, the single largest pension fund in the country, was divesting from hedge funds because of excessive management fees and disappointing returns. Claire Zvanski, the Vice President of SEIU 1021’s West Bay Retirees chapter, said that Operating Engineers Local 3’s pension fund was “in the toilet” and would be for the next 20 years due to its investments in hedge funds and the losses incurred there.

They pointed out the lack of regulation and transparency in hedge funds. Even the Trustees could never find out what the hedge funds they were investing in were doing with that money. They pointed out that some hedge funds have invested in efforts to eliminate defined benefit pensions like SFERS. That would be paying to cut our own throat, they said.

They noted what Lois Scott, past President of IFPTE Local 21, called “obscene” management fees— 2% of the investment and 20% of all returns.

They demanded that staff come back with a more in-depth analysis of all proposed “asset reallocation” plans and their mixes, and that some of those mixes should include no investment in hedge funds.

They also criticized the Board’s process. Last July SEIU 1021 President Roxanne Sanchez sent a letter to Board president Victor Makras with some 30 questions on why the Board was moving so quickly on the hedge fund proposal and if they had considered critical questions on why move into hedge funds and make all the other changes to the fund’s investments. The letter also asked that the Board hire an independent consultant to “prepare a robust contrarian critique” of the hedge fund proposal.

Makras did not send a response until Dec. 1, giving the union only one day to review and analyze the 15 page document with 80 pages of backup materials before the SFERS Board of Trustees meeting where a decision was scheduled to be made. Worse, it didn’t even respond to most of Sanchez’s questions.

“The document just continues the booster-based support without considering the critique of hedge fund investments or their downside,” said Marguerite Young from SEIU’s Capital Stewardship Program. “There was no description of other pension funds that considered hedge funds and what they decided and why.”

Cynthia Landry of SEIU 1021’s Retirement Security Committee told the Trustees, “You have a judiciary responsibility to sustain your retirees in their golden years. We have lots of concerns with the changing asset allocations.”

Trustees stop, members go

Towards the end of the public comment period, retired SEIU 1021 paramedic Jon Meade’s name was called. No more piling on about problems hedge funds was needed by then, so Meade turned his back to the Trustees and addressed the workers who still filled the hearing room. He thanked them for being there and at all the previous meetings.

“If we hadn’t made the effort, hedge funds would have already gotten our money,” Meade said.

In the end, with the widespread union and community attention to the issue, and the obvious media interest in their actions, the Trustees voted unanimously to defer the asset allocation decision until its February meeting to give staff an opportunity to give them more detailed information about each of its investment proposals so they could make a responsible decision.

To sign the petition to the SFERS Board of Trustees demanding no investment in hedge funds, click here.

The February meeting of the SFERS Board will be held Feb. 11 at 1 pm at 1145 Market Street 6th floor in San Francisco.

Did you like this? Share it:

SF Superior Court workers strike for justice

Picket lines went up at all three of the San Francisco court sites — the Civic Center Courthouse (CCC), the Hall of Justice (HoJ) and the Juvenile Justice Center(JJC) — at 6:30 am. As workers arrived in the morning, they were greeted by chanting people in purple. Even court reporters and court interpreters, members of other unions, joined the line.

Chief Shop Steward Gary Feliciano emphasized that this was a ULP strike because management had so blatantly broken labor law in negotiations.

“We are very disappointed that the San Francisco Superior Court, the institution we are devoting our careers to, the institution that should be the beacon of justice in our community, would show such disregard for the rights of others. The judiciary is not above the law,” Feliciano said. “We are taking this strike action today to hold them accountable, and to publicize to everyone in the City this Court’s outlaw behavior.”

The noon rally at CCCC showcased SEIU 1021 members from all over Civic Center, from City Hall, the Main Library, the PUC, the Museum, the Health Services Agency and more. A delegation of AFSCME Local 3299 from UC Hastings Law School a block away, who are in their own contract struggle, came by in a show of solidarity. SEIU 1021-endorsed candidate for San Francisco District 10, Supervisor Tony Kelly, made a guest appearance in support of the court workers as well.

Solidarity first

In an important first for court worker solidarity, the court interpreters of the California Federation of Interpreters-Communications Workers of America nearly unanimously respected the SEIU 1021 picket line and joined it. Two of their members spoke at the noon rallies, Northern California field representative Anabelle Garay at the HoJ and Spanish interpreter Shannon Raintree at CCC. Almost all court reporters, members of IFPTE Local 21, also stayed out, many joining the line.

The interpreters and reporters took advantage of a recent PERB ruling allowing them to not cross the picket line without employer retaliation. That was the result of a challenge of the City and County of San Francisco’s Charter provision prohibiting sympathy strikes by city employees. SEIU 1021 contended state labor law supersedes that the provision. The PERB agreed, and demanded the City remove that language from the Charter, clearing the way for intra-city union solidarity.

The noise, the silence

Pickets covered all entrances at the CCC and the HoJ. The pickets at the front of the CCC were so loud that whenever a sheriff would open a door, the noise reverberated through the entire building.

The strike shut down most court operations. All the windows where papers are filed and fines and fees collected were closed. “The place is like a church on Saturday,” one court reporter said.

The effectiveness of the strike so rattled Court Executive Officer Michael Yuen that he appeared to be losing it. First, when a union delegation went into the building to deliver the official notice that workers would return to the job the next day, he commanded his staff not to allow any strikers in the building even though he knows he can’t ban people from a public building.

After that Yuen called his own press conference where he branded the strikers “a group of rouge unionized employees.” He went on to say the strike was illegal and threatened to file a ULP against the union for walking out when there is a no-strike clause in the contract. Those statements were silly lies since he knows a ULP strike is legal even while a contract is in place. He doubled down on that claiming nearly half the courtrooms were still operating, something any reporter who bothered to look could see wasn’t true.

The court workers are in the last year of a three-year contract. The employer flatly told them that they weren’t going to give them any of the $16 million surplus they were required by law to spend. To the union’s wage proposals they simply said “no” and pretended they were making a counter offer when they responded with an “offer” of no raise at all.

The union responded by filing a ULP charge of bargaining in bad faith, alleging withholding of information, never really negotiating and making threats to its members’ jobs. As much as they were disgusted by the Court’s not offering any part of the surplus, they were disgusted more by the way the Court callously spent the full $16 million without restoring a single service cut during the last five years of budget deficits.

“We are here on the picket line because Michel Yuen won’t consider restoring five years of cut court public services cuts and he won’t consider making us — the lowest paid court employees — whole after years of layoffs, furloughs and wage cuts,” said Beto Gonzalez, a clerk in the Jury Dept. of the Hall of Justice.

Did you like this? Share it: