---------- Forwarded message ----------From:
June 7, 2012
SF COPE Delegates,
There has been a great deal of discussion this past week regarding the draft framework between ourLocal and UHW. As staff and member leaders in the Local, we are happy that this proposal isreceiving significant attention and debate.
First we would like to acknowledge that several of you have raised serious process concerns
regarding the proposed “Framework for Agreement between 1021 and UHW on Political Unity.” We
agree that this process has had shortcomings, and we want to accept our share of responsibility forthose. While we all have been very busy with all of our other work: contract negotiations, a majorsignature drive and election cycle, a staff reorganization including the search for and hiring of a newLead Director, continued work on amended bylaws, and the International Convention, a significantball was dropped. Although report-backs were made to SF COPE, we could have done a better job. Itis problematic that delegates to SF COPE would first see this document on a third-party websitebefore receiving it in internal correspondence. We also agree that the process used to inviteparticipants into the discussion with UHW was probably too informal. With that said, we would alsolike to recognize the participation from two COPE Chairs, our PAC chair, our CLC Executive Boardmember, our regional Vice-President, and several other COPE Delegates in this process. Given thislevel of participation, we feel that there should have been a more thorough report of the progress of the discussions to SF COPE. We are committed to learning from our mistakes and will do a better jobof being even more inclusive and transparent in the future.To the subject matter at hand, earlier this year, our President began having discussions with thePresident of UHW, Dave Reagan, and the President of the International, Mary Kay Henry, to talk about the differences between our Locals. In these conversations, Roxanne forcefully and repeatedlypointed out the inconsistencies of our sister local in their organizational philosophy and political
program. She pressed Reagan on how UHW’s engagement was compromising 1021’s position and
progressive politics in San Francisco, where we have been organizing from the bottom up to build apolitical movement of the 99% that has been challenging corporate power. As these three-way leaderconversations became exhausted, Roxanne proposed that we get rank-and-file members together todiscuss the same issues. The proposed Framework is the result of these sessions. During thediscussions, 1021 clearly laid out our issues with UHW. We challenged their leadership for theirposition in opposing the Healthy SF loophole closure and for supporting pro-downtown candidatesthat support contracting out against candidates that support all workers in public sector and privatehealth care and IHSS. We also challenged them on their anti-SF Labor Council stance.
It’s clear that
their leadership was uncomfortable being challenged on these issues in front of their members whowere not aware that these things had happened.
That’s not to say we’re turning UHW into a
democratic union, but we must provide some framework for internal-SEIU accountability for whatUHW has done and is doing in SF.