Labor History: A lesson for socialists in how not to function in the workers’ organizations.

Richard Mellor

Afscme Local 444, retired

HEO/GED

Note: I found the original and published this July 6th 1996.

A little bit of my personal labor history here that I rediscovered and that I think offers up some useful lessons just as relevant today. I was a member of the socialist organization Labor Militant from 1984 until I was expelled along with the entire Oakland California branch,  and John Throne (Sean O’ Torain) from the Chicago branch. I was expelled for violating Democratic Centralism, more details on that in the text below. It was a crushing blow at first but in the long run it was a good thing; as another comrade, Martin Legassic  described it with his exit from this organization, it unshackled my mind. There’s a nice obituary for Martin Legassick here.

 

My main contention was that this decision, taken by a clique in London and their collaborators here in the US, was that it was a betrayal to my union, Afscme Local 444, that had supported the publication of the opposition newsletter and endorsed it, as well as to my co-workers and fellow members that were supportive of me. In general, it sabotaged an important development, the building of a broad left front in one of the largest unions in the US placing placing the interests of a small socialist organization ahead of the interests of the working class as a whole.  

 

A lesson for socialists in how not to function in the workers’ organizations.

 

The final break with the organization came over a union opposition magazine called the AFSCME Activist. Richard Mellor was a relatively well-known opposition figure within AFSCME and had built a strong base in his own Local, AFSCME 444.  He attended most of the international conventions of AFSCME and I had suggested we test the waters with an opposition newsletter.  We agreed to this with the hope that we might be able to reach out to any activists or layer of activists that were angry at the Union leaderships’ failure to fight back and wanted to fight the employers or were looking for a vehicle to do so. The intention was to connect with those workers that weren’t necessarily socialists, were not ready to join a socialist organization, but were willing to unite around a broader anti-big business program.  With this method, a united front approach, we believed we would eventually win some of the best fighters to socialism and our organization; there was no open disagreement with this approach within the organization.

It was after the AFSCME convention in 1994 that the AFSCME Activist really began to grow through subscriptions from individuals and some unions. Richard, John Reimann who was also on the West Coast and not an AFSCME member, did the bulk of the work including contacts, sales and putting out the newsletter.  We had a difficult time getting other areas, notably New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, and to a lesser extent Chicago where we had a comrade, to take up the work to build the newsletter aggressively enough.  New York and Philadelphia had the two largest councils in AFSCME but comrades in these areas did not take advantage of this situation. The AFSCME comrades there openly opposed the united front approach as the majority faction guided by the IS began to take the position that the AFSCME Activist was a Labor Militant publication not a united front newsletter; the case for expulsion was being crafted. 

This came to a head when, at the AFSCME convention in Chicago in 1996, we called together many of the supporters from other unions in order to form an elected editorial board in an effort to draw these genuine rank and file fighters into playing a more leadership role.  The publication was a publication of AFSCME Members For a Stronger Union, and the rank and file workers that supported it and helped it grow from Wisconsin to Hawaii saw themselves as part of AMSU. It was not a magazine of our organization but of those who supported its basic demands which were related to the union and working conditions for those who were members of that union.

 

This was the embryo of a real caucus developing in one of the fastest growing and most influential unions in the AFL-CIO.  At the time AFCME Activist collapsed we had about nine locals subscribing to 50 or 100 copies and about 250 individual subscribers. We had taken a chance and organized an AMSU caucus meeting at the convention and, after electing an editorial board and hopefully more growth, we could run a candidate(s) at the next convention in 1998. At the AMSU caucus meeting we had two speakers from other locals, one was active in Local 444 and had joined LMV and the other was a supporter, a black woman from a small local in North Carolina.

 

Richard Mellor and Steve Edwards a comrade from Chicago who was also an AFSCME member were delegates from their locals and another comrade, Tom Trottier, an AFSCME member from NYC, was an alternate. These two comrades were hostile to the formation of an editorial board and took the position that the AFSCME Activist was a Labor Militant publication, not a broad front publication; they tried privately to get Richard Mellor to abandon the idea of an editorial board and demanded that the caucus meeting should not have speakers who were not LMV members, that AMSU was a “Labor Militant thing.”  On the speakers, Richard refused, reminding the comrades that this position was contrary to the whole intention of the Activist and AMSU which was an effort to build a broader opposition grouping.  Richard reminded Edwards that we would lose many of the people who had supported the AA and helped build it if they perceived that LM was using it as a Labor Militant front.  

The meeting to elect the editorial board took place in comrade Richard’s hotel room the night before the AFSCME convention began.   Comrades Edwards and Trottier arrived late to the meeting and attempted to persuade Mellor to call the meeting off. Edwards warned him that to form an editorial board was a decision that had to be made by Labor Militant not these workers. Some of the workers there clearly saw that there was some tension in the air. This became clear when the Trottier and Edwards were the only votes against forming an editorial board although their reasons were not clear and not those argued in private.  After voting no, Tom Trottier asked to have his name removed.

Both these comrades refused to sell or distribute the AFSCME Activist at the conference although Steve Edwards, despite opposing non Labor Militant members speaking at the AMSU meeting was willing to speak himself.

 

These comrades behaved in a sectarian and dishonest way with regards to the AFSCME Activist and we refused to participate in trying to take control in a dishonest way of what was a broad united front newsletter that was on the verge of becoming a real functioning caucus, AFSCME Members For a Stronger Union.  Their behavior at the meeting to elect an editorial board was dishonest as they never told the truth and explained that their “no” vote was due to them believing the AFSCME Activist should be controlled by Labor Militant.  The Activists at this meeting saw that all was not above board and it was the beginning of the end of this great opportunity.

 

After the convention, those activists that were closest to us and were the most active in helping build and raise the profile of the Activist within AFSCME asked what was wrong and why our own comrades voted against forming an editorial board.  We told them the truth, that there was an attempt by a section of the organization we were in to take control of the newsletter and its publication as they believed it was a Labor Militant organ. We explained that the Activist was not started as a Labor Militant publication and our opinion was that it was the publication of AMSU and those of them that considered themselves part of that had as much right to determine its fate as LMV members.  We had urged the two LMV members who opposed the editorial board to participate but their objectives were clear.

 

Desperate to expel us, the majority faction in the US advised by the majority of the IS back in Britain, decided to make an official demand for us to hand over all the names and addresses of the locals and individuals that subscribed to the newsletter. Richard Mellor refused. Our position was that these were not Richard’s to give. We maintained the position the organization had all along; the AFSCME Activist was a united front publication of AFSCME Members For a Stronger Union and the names and addresses of subscribers were not ours to give.  

Refusing to hand over the AFSCME Activist subscription list was the “official” reason for Richard’s expulsion.  He was accused of violating democratic centralism by collaborating “…in the dishonest maneuvers to remove AFSCME Activist from the control of LMV” * That the organization, with no open opposition, had from the beginning said the AA was a united front organization mattered not a bit.  The organization had such a dishonest corrupt internal life that it put its own sectarian interests and its determination to expel us above a step forward for the working class.

Not one comrade opposed these statements at the May 1995 National Conference over a year earlier:

John Throne: 
AFSCME Activist is not a Militant front.   We are building a genuine united front type broad left organization.  We have to stress this. Anyone who agrees with the program has full and equal membership.  Hopefully we will elect a national board for AFSCME Activist and Labor Militant will not necessarily be a majority on this and we won’t be the slightest bit worried that we won’t be a majority. 

Richard Mellor:

“We are the leadership of AFSCME Activist.  It is a broad based organization we lead at the present time.  We are trying to formulate a real national caucus.

Rob Rooke
“We are in the process of building a broad left in AFSCME.”

The importance of the AFSCME Activist cannot be underestimated. The sectarian approach of the CWI leadership and the majority faction in the US put an end to what was on the way to becoming a genuine fighting caucus in one of the most important unions in the US.  Not long after their activity wrecked the Activist, AFSCME became engulfed in a series of crises including decertification’s and trusteeships culminating in the financial scandals and ballot stuffing for a yes vote on a concessionary contract at its largest council, DC 37 in New York City. It is a lesson for socialists in how not to function in the workers’ organizations.

* Resolution on Expulsions passed at the Philadelphia Branch of Labor's Militant Voice 1-9-97 

There's more Labor Militant history here.

Afscme Local 444 History From a Participant #2

Richard Mellor

I'm reposting this that I posted a couple years ago as I just noticed the video was private. I've changed it to public and it's a little bit of labor history, my former local Afscme 444 during the early eighties.

As I say in the video, it's not likely I will write about this history so I'll speak it for my own satisfaction and for my grandchildren and anyone else who might find it interesting. As far as workers as union activists go, it's pretty similar to all of them. It is, after all, working class history and that history belongs to the vast majority of us but it is hidden and ignored by the big business media. When we think about it, the 44 day Flint sit down strike should be labor's 4th of July. The regular 4th of July is the celebration instituted by the capitalist class of the British colonies on this continent, in particular the northern industrialists, honoring their break from the semi-feudal British Empire.

The first short I did is here.   https://www.facebook.com/679989067/videos/2039094356431052/

Black History Month: Afscme and Martin Luther King

Richard Mellor

This is a Black History Month piece from the Afscme Activist. I hope you can enlarge it and read it. The Afscme Activist was an opposition newsletter that I started in Afscme in the 1990’s.

 

I was a member at the time of a left group and we published a US paper called Labor Militant. I had attended a few of the Afscme National Conventions and at one of them, I think it was in San Diego, I distributed a one-page statement titled, Let’s Be Realistic I think it was. I was just going through old copies cleaning out the garage so I haven’t gathered all the info for this with the intention of writing a historical piece. 

 

We had discussed this in our Oakland Branch and thought it was worth testing the waters.  The reception was very positive and we decided to publish a regular newsletter with the with the intention of building a rank and file caucus if things went well.

 

My union, Afscme Local 444 helped with a donation and after time ended up with subscriptions form unions in 10 states and around 250 subscribers. I think I sent each union 50 copies each. At the Chicago Convention in 1996 we had a public meeting with some 100 people attending. We were hoping to run candidates by the next convention from Afscme Members For a Stronger Union as we formed an editorial board in Chicago. 

 

Unfortunately the newsletter was sabotaged by the left group I was a member of that decided the publication was a Labor Militant organ not the publication of a broad left or rank and file caucus; they wanted to control it for factional reasons. At my hotel room where we voted to form an editorial board which meant including many of the people that helped the paper grow and sent articles for it, many of them women, two of my comrades voted against the proposal. The other rank and file members were somewhat shocked. But I was not going to lie to them and I told them what was going on and refused to hand over the subscribers list to the organization when they demanded I do so.

 

I was expelled for violating Democratic Centralism. It was worth it.

You can read about the Afscme Activist and my experience here.

Labor History: Afscme Local 444, Labor Notes, Mazzochi and the Labor Party

Richard Mellor

Afscme Local 4, retired

HEO/GED

I found this old report myself and Roger Martinez wrote after a Labor Notes Conference in 1989. Both of us  had changed somewhat in our political views over the thirty years since we wrote it as objective conditions have changes also. But it was very important as we met with Anthony Mazzochi of the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers there who was a labor official raising the need for a Labor Party. Sean O' Torain (John Throne) had met with Mazzochi in NYC and suggested we see if we could get him to agree to a meeting in California. We did as explained below. This ultimately led to the meeting you see in the flier the success of which, Mazzini admitted, led him to form Labour Party Advocates. Roger and I were local 444 delegates to Labor Notes and to the Labor Party Conference in Cleveland in the mid nineties.

Roger  and Afscme local 444 were influential in getting the Afscme Rank and File opposition newsletter off the ground and we had a caucus meeting at the Afscme Convention in 1996 with 100 or more rank and file in attendance, not the usual sectarians from the self styled revolutionary groups; Earl Silbar , a militant oppositionist in Afscme was also an important figure in making this a success. This caucus and ultimately the opposition newsletter was wrecked by the socialist organisation, the US section of the CWI,  I was a member of that wanted to gain control of it claiming it was the newsletter of that organisation. This was a lie. It was begun as an organ of a broad front of rank and file Afscme members, my own local supported it and donated a little money to help get it out to other unions. You can read more about this here.

I was expelled from the CWI for not handing over the names, addresses and union locals that subscribed to  the newsletter and  I am grateful for that. I have further thoughts on the LPA and how the so called revolutionary left contributed negatively to that movement but not today

Report from Labor Notes Conference 1989

June 13, 1989

 

Over 100 trade unionists attended the 1989 Labor Notes Conference representing 37 states, 3 Canadian provinces, 65 different unions and some half dozen countries.The conference theme was the direction the labor movement will take in the coming period. The two principle speakers were Jerry Tucker from the UAW and Anthony Mazzochi. From OCAW (Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers).

 

Tucker represents a growing division among the top leadership of the UAW whose members have lost jobs and taken huge concessions in wages and other benefits in the last few years. This, despite huge profits being made by the auto manufacturers; Tucker himself admitted that it was developments from the rank and file that aroused his interest and he has become the expression for the rising anger and frustration among auto workers.

 

His recent electoral success and the development of the New Directions movement are a glimpse of what is to come in the U.S. trade Union movement. Local 444 delegates talked with a number of auto workers who were previously inactive, but had become involved with their union due to the emergence of the New Directions Movement. Although Tucker put forward no real alternative to the policies of the established leadership, calling simply for Democracy, solidarity and accountability, this shows that seemingly apathetic and passive layers of union members will become more active and are prepared to fight if they see the slightest inkling of a lead.

 

Also, Glen Barrien, the National President of the Mailhandler’s Union spoke. He talked of the long battle he has had with the laborer’s union, with whom they were affiliated in 1968. His union had been put in trusteeship by the Laborers International and the Mailhandler’s candidates for office had been ignored. Finally, after years of fighting, Brother Barrien is now National President of the Mailhandlers and his members have won the right to vote on their own contracts and for the election of their own leaders. Brother Barrien was only 33 years old.

 

Anthony Mazzochi of OCAW spoke on the question of a labor party in the U.S. The question of a labor party in the U.S, was much more prevalent at this conference than the previous one in 1986. Brother Mazzochi was asked by Afscme local 444 delegates if he would attend and speak at a public forum on the question of a labor party. We told him that local 444 was willing to sponsor and endorse such a meeting. He informed us that he would indeed be willing to come and would pay his own expenses.

 

Local 444 representatives also attended workshops on political action, public service employment, racism and leadership accountability. We found it distressing that issues such as racism, were split up in to single issue items. Men were allowed to attend the Women’s Caucus for example but weren’t allowed to speak. One woman did get up in the women’s caucus and in response to the introduction stated, “We all have something in common” referring to sexual gender and said that she had something in common with working class women but not all women. The problems with racism were also dealt with along these lines.

 

We met with a number of delegates from other Afscme unions, as far apart as Wisconsin and Maine. There was a general similarity in all our situations. All over the country we are facing attacks on our unions. Contracting out, removing of people from bargaining units by all sorts of methods is common to us all. The use of temporary and LTC workers is everywhere increasing. Most of the AFSCME members all wanted to move toward building links between different locals, corresponding with each other and possibly receiving each other’s newsletters. At our last Executive Board meeting, this was discussed and hopefully with the re-emergence of Local 444’s newsletter, publications or articles from other locals nationwide could be published.

 

Conclusion

Perhaps the most significant lessons we learned from attending this conference was that all is far from quiet in the trade union movement. It is clear that people out there who are dissatisfied with the way things are and are looking for direction. There were a number of people present who had not previously been active in their unions.

 

Unfortunately, there was also some things lacking from the conference in general. There was no discussion allowed outside of the workshops. There was a demonstration by the supporters of the established UA leadership and we were told to ignore it. Instead, they should have been invited in and the various ideas and policies should have been debated.

 

The was also no mention whatsoever of the economy. Here we are on the verge of a recession, inflation is on the rise, international trade war is developing and the US or world economy was left out. On the whole though, the experience was good and necessary and we thank the local for sending us and allowing us to represent it.

 

Submitted

Roger Martinez

Richard Mellor

1-15-89

Opeiu-3-afl-cio (254) bjd

444 Mellor 6-15-89           

Afscme Local 444. Sick Leave Struggles in the 1980's and 90's

Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired
HEO/GED

 

Some labor history focusing on workplace struggles and contract battles. One of the major issues in dispute on the job as far as my activity was concerned was the issue of sick leave. At one time when we filled out a sick leave slip at work, we had to say what we were sick with. Of course, “sick of being work” is not a valid reason so people would write headache, stomach upset or whatever. We fought that on the basis that we were not doctors and were not qualified to say what caused us to feel sick that day. There were all other issues around it including how long we had to be off before seeing a doctor. Also the employer dealt with what they called sick leave abuse in a very arbitrary fashion. We didn’t like them having an average use by which they determine abuse. It’s not rocket science to recognize that historically the boss wants you at work all the time and certainly doesn’t want to pay you when sick

 

The US has one of the worst sick leave (mosty no sick leave) programs in advanced capitalist economies. We came out of our strike in 1985 with a Sick Leave Verification Program that was adequate. But, contracts are very temporary things as the tendency of the boss is to violate it as soon as the ink is dry. The best defender of rights we have on the job is the workers ourselves. Don’t start work early, don’t violate rules that protect you and the union as a whole and so on. Years later my employer was undermining our negotiated sick leave verification program. I was retired a year or so but wanted to make sure my co-workers understood what we had and that they should defend it which sometimes means a struggle against your own leadership on many occasions. 

This is the history of my local union's sick leave struggles during my years active and I wrote it in order to help members in the defense of their sick leave rights with a little historical background. I am sure other rank and file activists like myself in other workplaces and industries have similar experiences as we did. Perhaps you will find this interesting reading as well. 

 

Don’t Give Away Your Sick Leave Benefits

 

Some History on Sick leave Verification (SLVP)

 

Before I retired from the District in 2004 there was an ongoing attempt by the District to weaken Article 16 (sick leave) of Local 444’s contract.  The District’s main concern was sick leave verification.  The problem for the District was the clause in Local 444’s contract; in 2003 it was 16.1.6 and in various contracts has been titled, “Limitations”. It has consistently prevented the District from arbitrarily imposing discipline and restrictions on sick leave use, unless the Union agrees to it. 

 

In the last contract that I have, 1997-2003, 16.1.6 states, “A doctor’s certificate indicating time under a doctor’s care, approval for return to work, and any work limitations is required if sick leave extends to ten (10) consecutive workdays or more.”

 

The only difference between the language here and the corresponding language in the 1974-76 Local 444 contract is that the number five changes to 10. (Article 16 section 1F, Limitations)

 

It can’t get any clearer than that.  YOU DON’T HAVE TO BRING A DOCTORS SLIP UNTIL YOU ARE SICK FOR THE TENTH DAY.  That has been the case from 1985 until fairly recently.  The exception to this was if the employee was on the District’s Sick leave verification program (SLVP).  The problem, particularly in the past 10 years or so, is that the SLVP, introduced in its present form after negotiations in 1985, is too restrictive for the District, it doesn’t allow them a free enough hand.

 

History of the SLVP post 1985

Prior to 1985 there were numerous letters of discipline and warnings issued to Local 444 members that also informed them that their sick leave was excessive and that any further use of sick leave would have to be “verified”. Local 444 members were also told to bring in doctor’s slips despite being off sick less than five days.  Sick leave verification was also an issue with 2019 members in the Lab at SD1 and it is no coincidence that most ,or all, of this 2019 unit stayed out with Local 444 in the strike.

 

At this point in time, the District’s definition of “abuse” was not clearly formulated as confirmed by Don Crum’s memo to Phil Utic and Pete Mitchell dated 10-26-84.  Crum advocated using the District’s annual sick leave average which at that time was seven days.  This issue was an ongoing one with the District at this time.

 

The Union, some folks like Richard Mellor, Kathy Cheetham, Wayne Tomasek and Joe Montoya among others, Filed grievances under article XV1-1F of the 1982-85 contract which stated (you guessed it) “A doctor’s certificate indicating time under a doctor’s care, approval for return to work, and any work limitations is required if sick leave extends to ten (5) consecutive workdays or more.”

 

District’s Defense

The District tried to dodge this powerful clause and claimed that it had the right to verify sick leave any time it wanted and cited another sentence in the famed sick leave clause that states, “All sick leave use is subject to review, verification, and approval by the District” This sentence was in the 1974-76 contract and all subsequent contracts to my knowledge. (I will return to this later) .  The Union struck by the strong language in the contract that protected our members and argued that the disciplinary letters were in violation of the five-day clause and attempts to verify even after five days were arbitrary and left the door open to favoritism and discrimination.                                                                                 

 

How It All Changed

The issue was resolved in the 1985 negotiations.  The Union accepted the District had the right to deal with abuse but not to violate our contract by doing so.   The 1985 negotiations introduced the Sick Leave Verification Program that didn’t violate our contract (444 members did not have to bring a doctors slip before 5 days per the contract and the District would not demand verification prior to that unless an employee was put on the new program) The program satisfied the Union in that the District had to go through a procedure that would clearly show abuse and had a series of steps to it and wouldn’t be used in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.

 

A supervisor would have to compare carefully the employee’s sick leave to the average employee but needed to look for patterns that signified abuse like Mondays and Fridays etc. If the supervisor determined the employee was using excessive sick leave or was an abuser then they counseled the employee and if it didn’t improve, the employee was to be told that they would be placed on the SLVP)  The SLVP, a product of union management discussions, was added to PPS&P #20. On May 10, 1985 Artis Dawson sent a memo to Audrey Daniels, then Local 444 President confirming that these discussions had taken place and that the District was modifying its SLVP accordingly.  

 

An important part of the SLVP and something that we will return to is actually the motivation for the District’s renewed offensive.  Local 444’s contract stated in Article XV1 1D (1985) that members could use two days sick leave a year for family medical emergencies and it defined family, mother father etc.  The Sick Leave Verification Program which the District and Union accepted states, “Sick leave  used for family medical emergency use should not be used in calculations for determining abuse or excessive use of sick leave.”  The Union wanted this in the SLVP and the District agreed to it. Artis Dawson’s 1985 memo to Audrey Daniels itself confirmed this, “The two days maximum medical emergency use existing in the Memorandum of Understanding will not be used in calculations for the Sick Leave Verification Program.” (Artis Dawson to Audrey Daniels may 10, 1985)

 

The Union was happy with this agreement and the District agreed to pull all the letters in people’s personnel files relating to this issue.  The Tentative Agreement dated 5-13-85 to which this writer was a participant states, “..the Union will agree to drop the arbitration and all grievances filed regarding employees sick leave verification and will not challenge the District’s right to verify sick leave in the future.”    

The Union accepted the District’s right to verify sick leave under the sick leave verification program.  The Union never gave up its defense and rights under the five day clause (now 10) of article XV1.  Both parties agreed to drop all proposals regarding sick leave.  The District in 1985 had a proposal to “clarify” their right to demand verification using the sentence in the contract “All sick leave use is subject to review, verification, and approval by the District” The Union did not agree that this meant the District could demand a sick leave slip or discipline members prior to 5 days as stated in the contract.

 

The Sick Leave Verification Program clarified the issue somewhat and the matter was settled….for a while.

 

After 1985

Naturally, the minute the ink on a contract is dry, the employers try to violate it and take back what they were forced to concede through negotiations and the fear of strike action.  But after 1985 supervisors now had a clear process for dealing with sick leave abuse.  They probably didn’t like it because it made them work but it protected Local 444’s members and that was good for the Union.  But then things changed.  The Family Medical Leave clause was the problem.  

 

Look at these figures:

 

Number of sick leave days a year that can be used for family Medical Emergency by contract year: 

 

1985-88: 2 

1988-91: 3

1991-94: 6 

1994-97: 13

 

Here’s a big problem for the District.  The Sick Leave Verification Program stated as clear as a bell that  “Sick leave used for family medical emergency use should not be used in calculations for determining abuse or excessive use of sick leave.”  But by 1997 this type of leave had amounted to 13 days. Local 444 got this after it was won by 2019.  The District was in a panic.  People are calling in family sick and we can’t nail them for it because we can’t use thirteen of these days as a calculation for abuse or excessive usage.  The District was in trouble. It wanted to eliminate this obstacle.

 

The 1990’s

All through the nineties whenever over-zealous District supervisors tried to discipline people or get them to bring in doctor’s slips prior to the ten days as stated in Local 444’s contract, the Union stopped them. If the employee was sick for ten consecutive work days or more then the District could demand a slip and its other rights under this clause.  If an employee was considered an abuser or an excessive user then there was the SLVP and its guidelines. The procedures for the SLVP including sample letters for supervisors to use were outlined in the management manuals.  If this was violated it was due to either the lack of a Union presence or a weak Union presence but either case doesn’t deny the Union its rights. I know that myself Roger Martinez,, Cheryl Zuur and others fought the District aggressively during this period demanding they use the SLVP.

 

By 1994, seeing there were 6 days that could be used to determine abuse, the District had a proposal for a sick leave use standard.  To my knowledge they did not get one.  By 1997 when myself, Roger Martinez and Cheryl Zuur were in negotiatons, the District tried again to claim that, according to the contract,  it had the right to demand sick leave verification whenever it wanted to.  This is what they claimed in 1985 remember.  

The lead negotiator for the District, a man named Fleming was told about the SLVP program and was told to visit 1985.  We had already won that battle over when the District can and cannot ask for a slip or verify.  In other words, the District was returning to the same, worn out defense that the contract said, “All sick leave use is subject to review, verification, and approval by the District”.  The Union demanded that they use their program but we were defending our contract which made it very clear that a doctor’s slip was not needed prior to the tenth day unless a person was on the SLVP.

 

Fleming agreed to check out the 1985 agreements and the District attacks on sick leave in 1997 were repelled.

 

The Present

Since I have retired and since the two people I worked with most closely on these issues, Roger Martinez and Cheryl Zuur, have not been active in the leadership of the Local, I am not sure what has occurred since 1997.  What I do know is that during the Presidencies of Robert Lopez and John Hayden, the District found two Union officials who supported their views and made their arguments for them.  On more than one occasion I had discussions with Both Hayden and Lopez where they both defended the District’s right to verify and ask for a doctor’s slip anytime.   They both refused to use their positions to defend the contract when the infraction involved a Local 444 member that they considered “weak on sick leave”.  I have no idea what, if any, agreements they might have made with the District since 1997.

 

These two presidents made the same arguments that the District made in 1985 only it was the late nineties, early 2000’s and we had the Sick leave Verification Program.  If the District didn’t want to use it that wasn’t the Union’s problem, it was based on an agreement with the Local.   Our contract was clear and it is what we must defend. Sure, on a first reading it might seem that the statement that the District uses from the sick leave clause gives them the right.  But there is history here.   The Union had been through that but there was no way Hayden and Lopez would abandon the District’s position.  Anyway, even in the worst case scenario, there are two sides in this world, if the language is somewhat vague in any instance, the Union should defend that which best protects its members, not take up the employers’ position.

 

During the last contract negotiations, despite strenuous objections by Roger Martinez, Cheryl Zuur and Richard Mellor, the leadership of 444 and 2019 made a mistake; they took the issue of negotiating changes in critical PPS and P's, such as this one, off the table. As a result they have now been in negotiations for TWO years. It has come down to the wire now on this issue of sick leave, which the District is determined to change. On Thursday Sept 29 there is a joint special meeting of the locals to discuss and determine what language will be accepted at the table.

 

 FIGHT BACK

 

Defend the contract.  It is clear: “A doctor’s certificate indicating time under a doctor’s care, approval for return to work, and any work limitations is required if sick leave extends to ten (10) consecutive workdays or more.”

 

The District has a Sick leave Verification Program, they should use it.

 

If the District doesn’t want to use the negotiated SLVP program it is secondary.  The contract still stands.  Don’t negotiate away the sick leave rights, don’t let them return to pre-85.

 

If the District wants to modify, introduce or negotiate another SLVP, the Union should tell them, in no uncertain terms that “we’ll see you at the negotiating table next contract time.” This is what they would tell the Union if the Union made an error that needed corrected.   

 

I hope that this helps clear up some of the misunderstanding about the SLVP.  Most importantly, remember, the District wants you at work all the time. To hell with your family, your friends, your leisure, your personal life.  And the supervisors get big bonuses if they do their best to make that happen.

 

In this case the contract is strong, but it is stronger when backed up with a united and conscious membership that is willing to take some sort of collective action to defend it.

 

Richard Mellor

AFSCME Local 444 retired

South and Central Yards

9-28-05

Which Side Would You Have Been on in Your Union?

A little local union history. What Side Would You Have Been on in Your Union?

The union local to which I belonged, Afscme Local 444, was a rank and file controlled, historically democratic local. Myself and others, particularly my good friend and brother, Roger Martinez, always fought to keep it that way. I was going through some old union papers and fliers and thought some folks who have spent their lives in union activity at this level, might find this short clip from a statement I put out on a motion that passed interesting. I posted it widely as at this point in time, myself, Cheryl Zuur and Roger had relinquished the leadership of the local (he might have been finishing up his term I can’t remember) and a more conservative group was at the helm; some of them opportunistically looking for a role in management. 

 

The motion that passed would have “prevented anyone on a supervisors list from being on the negotiating committee” as it says below. The leadership wanted to increase the number of attendees that made a quorum so the union could conduct business. They tried to use the argument that too few members came to meetings and that it was more democratic. Really! The motion was in response to this. After it passed, he leadership, or a section of it, resigned. It’s a no brainer in my view and many members saw it as an undemocratic attempt to undermine rank and file power. 

 

I am interested what position other union activists or former or retired activists like myself would have taken or any comments they want to share. Was I right to explain my support this way? Also, some of my co-workers and former members might be interested in this little bit of history. I will cover the names mentioned herein but I really would prefer not to as we took a fair bit of abuse from these folks especially the one who eventually did join management’s ranks. I am grateful for my retirement but damn I miss the union stuff. This was my response to their resignation.

 

Why they resigned

I was not at the meeting where the motion was made that prevented anyone on a supervisors list from being on the negotiating committee. But I would have voted for it had I been there. (my faction took a day off). Does the dues paying member honestly believe that someone who is aggressively pursuing a supervisory position and actually serving in that capacity is a good candidate to fight for their interests at the negotiating table? I do not. 

 

The three officers that resigned are pursuing careers in management and for them to have taken positions as such while they were in the union roles they were is a conflict of interest. This is why the members never saw any literature from the local aggressively confronting management's attacks, our top leaders were pursuing careers that they thought would be adversely affected by such an approach. Psychologically it is also a victory for management because it gives credibility to their argument that union leaders or workers representatives always betray their constituency, always sell out. 

 

Naturally everyone has a right to promote, they just shouldn't use the union as a stepping stone. These brothers also treated the union disrespectfully resigning the way they did. (after they signed their checks of course). I also understand the union member that made the motion received his fair share of abusive e mails from JH and MS. So much for a member's right to express themselves without being humiliated and abused. RL knows about this but chooses to keep it under his hat.

The Quorum

In the almost 25 years that I have been active in the local, attendance has been something everyone wants to improve. We do not live in a totalitarian society, members are not threatened with death if they attend union meetings. As unions go we have been one of the more active. Traditionally not much more than 10% of members attend their meetings. What RL is proposing, sounds super democratic but is in fact a remedy for strengthening the tendency toward bureaucracy in the local and removing the decision making process even further form the membership. This is a trend that has permeated the present leadership.

 

For our local to make any decision under R’s plan, we would need 60 or 70 members at a meeting. It is hard to get that many even for a seemingly non-political issue but one that has dire consequences on people's lives. Only 20 or 25 people decided on the plumber 4 issue though many hate it. So 50 people at a meeting, a good attendance figure, would not be able to make any decision for the local. What happens then? What happens then is that the executive board makes those decisions. So instead of 15, 20, 35 members making decisions form the local, you now have the same regular 13 executive board members. The higher union officials like this as it keeps members away, but it is bad policy; as is the case in many unions across the country, membership meetings disappear and only the "leaders" meet and make decisions. It institutionalizes bureaucracy.

 

Because of space limitations I will add only one more brief comment. RL obviously believes politics has a place in the union movement. He supports the present political position of the labor hierarchy which is to give our money to that ever shrinking liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I agree with R that we should participate in politics, but independently. Throwing our hard earned money at these people, lobbying (bribing) them in Sacramento, has not prevented the defeats that U.S. labor has suffered over the last 25 years. Both RL and RM* see joining the "friends of labor" and getting themselves elected to local office with these "friends" as strengthening the labor movement; I do not, these people aren't our friends and I think history is one my side. Labor should run candidates opposed to and independent of the two corporate parties. **

 

Richard Mellor 9/12/02

**In the organized labor movement there is a tendency of individuals or groups that form in to caucuses with the goal of challenging the present pro-management, business union oriented leadership, to call their caucus or state their main aim to be union democracy. Members for a Democratic Union for example. I formed a caucus in Afscme and we called it Afscme Member for a Stronger Union and we had a platform other than just saying we stood for democracy. There is nothing wrong with fighting for or defending democratic rights and rank and file power in your local union. It’s a safe bet you won’t offend the leadership you want to replace by making “Democracy” the only issue. They support it too. When I used to attend the Afscme national conventions, they were pretty democratic. The problem was the leadership had all the votes. 

What I have found though, is that simply saying your caucus stands for union democracy, TDU is a good example, doesn’t say much. What it does, and often this is intentional for groups like TDU, is avoid raising demands, or issues that will bring them in to conflict with the established bureaucracy. They also fear raising expectations among the membership when they have no program or strategy for winning it. And It is impossible to draw the average worker in to activity on the basis of the need democracy alone. Most local unions to be honest are pretty democratic compared to other institutions in society. We have to have a program, something we are fighting for and a plan for winning it. 

My Afscme 444 history #2

A continuation of some of the daily struggles I participated in over the years. This is not a detailed history, I haven't spent hours writing the screenplay. It is just some of my recollections and the things we won, seemingly minor things like lighter meter boxes.

It's important for young people to recognize that what you have never came from the generosity of the employers or the state and its political parties, but through working peoples struggles on the job. I have had a very good retirement and a decent living. I owe that to the workers who fought before me, not just in my workplace but throughout the nation, and I mention a little about this in Afscme Local 444 history #1.

Some Personal Labor History: Solidarity, Unity and Struggle

Two Richards: The Wastebasket Affair

Richard Mellor

Afscme Local 444, retired.

3-30-23

 

I hooked up with an old friend today after about a 20-year gap. I first met Richard at work. He was in Janitorial and I was in Maintenance at Central Yard and still in the ditch, not yet a backhoe operator. Central was one of his stations and he made it livable for those of us that had to return to work there the next day.

 

Central was already a hotbed of union activity before I got there; in fact, it’s where I learned the importance of the trade union. When I was brought up on charges for creating a hostile workplace------distributing a leaflet criticizing a co-worker for his pro-management activities that undermined solidarity in the yard----- I won the arbitration that resulted. At one point the lawyer’s brief stated:

“….there was a practice at Central Yard for union members to distribute written materials to fellow employees on the job about workplace matters……..As a matter of reality, union activity took place at the workplace as if it were a union meeting. This custom was carried out with the knowledge and implicit (if not explicit) approval of management.” *

 

One time, there was an issue and I can’t remember all the details. My recollection is that the black workers, who were a majority of us, were upset about a number of issues, in particular the testing procedure. None of us had any objection or criticism as far as I remember; solidarity was strong in the yard. The black workers were not pointing fingers at their white co-workers or anyone else except the management.  

 

So the boss sent the Director of Administration over to find out what was going on. This was a black woman who I recall getting hired round about the time of the 1985 strike. Her job was to interview the black workers to find out what was wrong and what needed to be done, I am sure it was black workers in particular but maybe it was all of us. She did her job and went off planning to return after the management had decided what steps to take.

 

Myself and the other union activists were trying to figure out what management’s tactics would be to calm the black workers and, ever suspicious, to in some subtle way direct the anger more toward other workers in the yard, or reduce the anger toward the bosses in some way.

 

So within a week or so, Richard gets in touch with me. We lived in the same neighborhood round from Eastmont Mall in East Oakland so we saw each other a fair bit. Richard stopped at the house and brought a little gift with him. He also cleaned this woman’s office and as he went to empty her waste basket he noticed a lot of torn up notes in there. He wasn’t sure what they were but Rich was strong union, a steward in Janitorial and had played a good role in the 1985 strike, so he scooped them up and brought them round to my house after work.

 

It turned out these were notes this manager had taken interviewing the workers in Central Yard. We sat down and put the pieces together like a jigsaw puzzle and they were very readable.

 

So for the next meeting which would be with the union reps we knew exactly what she was thinking, what she was recommending to her boss. It was a handy position for us to be in. Shredders put a stop to that.

 

Today, Rich and I had a cup of coffee at a little place in Berkeley near where he lives and we laughed about that. He is a Muslim so it’s Ramadan and he couldn’t eat anything. But this sort of history, this solidarity and tales of the class struggle on the job are so important for young people to hear and learn from. The role of leadership is crucial in this regard. It is the union leadership’s job to bring the history of the organization and the people that helped make it to light. It is the leadership’s job to struggle for the consciousness of the working class in the workplace against the bosses' efforts to obscure it.

 

It was great to see an old union fighter again; he’s 77 now a little older than me. I should end with one point. In the workplace we called Central Yard, one of four satellite maintenance yards in our service area, comradeship and solidarity were very strong. This doesn’t happen without effort, without a struggle, without day in day out making sure that any attempts to undermine this unity would mean a fight. Central Yard was eventually closed and one steward sent north with some folks and the other (this writer) sent south with others. It was opened up some years later. I am so proud to have been one small part of it and it was magic to sit down with Richard again and talk about work, life and history.

*Arbitration Proceedings Local 444 (AFSCME, AFL-CIO) and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Brief on Behalf of the Union Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld