February 8, 2009 UNITE HERE. From: John W. Wilhelm, President/Hospitality Industry

Transcription

1 1775 K STREET, NW, SUITE 620, WASHINGTON, DC TEL (202) FAX (202) February 8, 2009 To: UNITE HERE From: John W. Wilhelm, President/Hospitality Industry Labor unions, like any other entity attempting to govern itself democratically and for the common good of its members, face the difficult challenge of devising a sound system of government. This may be the labor movement s fundamental challenge. How does a large International Union like ours, representing the interests of people working across two nations and in numerous industries, balance competing interests, ensure the will of the majority is respected while the voice of the minority is heard, continue to inspire the loyalty and unity of every part of the Union, and make difficult choices intelligently? In other words, how can the Union govern itself in a way that is wise, fair, effective, strong, honest, and democratic? The system of governance of a labor union is laid out in its Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme governing document of the Union and the ultimate source of authority within the Union. It determines the basic rules and procedures by which all decisions are reached. A Constitution should be able to withstand the test of time, and should protect the organization against the faults, flaws and fallibility of its individual office-holders. A good Constitution contains an intelligent system of checks on, and distribution of, power; effective mechanisms to ensure integrity and fairness; and reliable guarantees of the rights of all Union members. Its design should never be based on personal trust in the wisdom or good faith of any individual or individuals. When UNITE and HERE merged, a Constitution was negotiated by representatives of the two Unions and approved without debate by the merger convention. An unusual governing structure was contrived which vested immense power jointly in the International Union and in the hands of two men, the General President, Bruce Raynor, and the President of the Hospitality Division, myself, referred to collectively as the Presidents. Although necessary in the context of the merger, our Constitution is not a governing document that can withstand the test of time. I strongly believe the merger was the right thing to do for our members and I would do it again tomorrow. However, since the merger, differences have existed among us. As time has passed, those differences have not been resolved. They extend to the working relationship between Bruce Raynor and myself. One thing Bruce and I agree on is that

2 we have not been working together constructively. This situation makes the need for Constitutional reform more obvious and more urgent. It has become clear to me that President Raynor and I have very different ideas about how the Union should be governed. President Raynor forthrightly espouses his strong belief that power in the Union should be centralized and concentrated in the person of the President, and that the affiliates should be totally subordinate to the President. In fact, President Raynor has attempted to claim for the Presidents even greater powers than the Constitution allows. For example, he has denied powers clearly granted the GEB, such as the fundamental authority set forth in Article 3, Section 6, granting the GEB general supervisory powers over all the affairs of UNITE HERE, as well as the power to resolve disputes between the Presidents clearly granted in Article 3, Sections 3 and 6. He has unilaterally exercised powers jointly shared by both Presidents. President Raynor has violated the Constitution by flagrantly disregarding the directives of the Executive Committee, which exercises the authority of the GEB between sessions. President Raynor also openly admits that he believes his powers should be used unilaterally to trade away the contractual rights of our affiliates and their members to obtain voluntary recognition at non-union shops (i.e. growth ) from major corporations. President Raynor has frequently stated that the Union s greatest enemy is standards. By standards, he means contractual standards regarding our members wages, benefits and working conditions standards the Union has fought hard to establish over many years. I too understand that the most important goal our International Union must pursue is growth. Unless we organize on a much larger scale and increase Union density in the industries within UNITE HERE s jurisdiction, the power of our Union will wither and die. It is also sometimes appropriate to negotiate with major corporations to obtain neutrality card check agreements, to remove employer resistance to organizing. However, such agreements should not be made at the expense of the very standards that are at the core of the Union s purpose. The Union cannot expect to grow, by making itself less relevant and beneficial to its members. Such a course would ultimately destroy the Union. I am also opposed to President Raynor s insistence on greater centralization of power in the Union, and more specifically, in the Presidents. The leaders of the affiliates of our Union are directly elected by and accountable to the membership. It is their responsibility, and they are best qualified, to make decisions that affect the negotiation and enforcement of their members collective bargaining agreements. It should not be possible for the International Union Presidents, plural or singular, to use their powers to impose their political will on the affiliates or their elected leaders. Doing so robs the members of their most important democratic rights within the Union. The differences between President Raynor and myself are fundamental, and represent

3 diverging roads down which our Union can choose to travel. It is therefore a reality that the Union will have to find an alternative to the existing partnership between Bruce Raynor and me. I m sorry to say, it also appears to be a reality that both Bruce and I are mistrusted by people within our Union This means that, as the Convention approaches, people in our Union are faced with the possible prospect of the wrong President soon taking possession of all the powers described above. People feel vulnerable and threatened. People understandably believe that the wrong President could and would abuse his powers to consolidate control of the Union by crushing his opposition. Because of these fears, the differences between us have turned into an open fight that has manifested itself in affiliates offices across the country, at the Amalgamated Bank, in cyberspace, and in the Union s Executive Committee. Ultimately, the fight will be won and lost in the GEB and at the Union s Convention. But we should ask ourselves: What then? Will those that prevail allow their leader to keep all the Presidential powers enumerated in this Constitution? If so, how could any officers of the Union or of any affiliate, no matter what side they were on, feel confident that they would continue to remain safely in the President s, or his successor s, good graces? Will the losers who, like all of us, have devoted their lives to the Union, be forced out, or marginalized? That s not the kind of Union we should be. All the members and officers of our Union should be able to voice their opinions, run for office, and even strenuously oppose the President of the International Union, without fear of retaliation. For these reasons, I believe that despite the differences between us, the leaders of our Union should begin to discuss and try to agree, prior to the Convention, on a plan to redesign the system of government of our Union and to amend its Constitution accordingly. Among the goals, of such constitutional reform, I would propose the following: 1. Redistribution of Power. The powers of the President(s) should be reduced. Authority should be redistributed in a way that establishes reasonable checks and balances. For example, as the entity most representative of the affiliates, the General Executive Board should be clearly recognized as the governing body of the Union, between conventions, and should have greatly amplified primary authority over all aspects of the Union s operations, as well as exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. To do so, the GEB would necessarily become more active, meeting with more frequency and regularity than currently. Also, some of the other powers currently held by the Presidents should be divided among one or more additional general officers, such as a Secretary-Treasurer and/or Executive Vice President. 2. Improved System of Electing GEB. A system of electing the Executive Board

4 that ensures representation of and accountability to all affiliates of the Union should be devised. Instead of at-large elections, the system must guarantee that every industry and region is represented in a way that the will of the majority of the membership is respected, and the voice of the minority is always heard. 3. Local Autonomy. The Constitution should ensure that affiliates retain control over the negotiation and enforcement of their own collective bargaining agreements, strikes, assets, and their own internal governance, both in terms of by-laws and in terms of elections. Trusteeships should be imposed, and the democratically elected affiliate leaders removed, only where absolutely necessary. The standards for imposition of a trusteeship must be clear and narrow, and protections must be adopted to prevent trusteeships from being used as a tool to silence or punish dissidents. Where possible, only the officer engaged in the misconduct should be removed, and replaced in accordance with the affiliate by-laws. The same principles must be applied to charter revocations, charges against and suspension of officers, supervision, and the like. Otherwise, these tools serve not only to subvert the will of the membership of the affiliate who democratically elected their leader, but can be used as a tool to punish political opponents. Strong procedural and legal protections should be incorporated into the Constitution to prevent the use of such emergency authority by the International Union for political purposes. Furthermore, the Constitutional provision allowing forced mergers, without the consent of all affected affiliates and the majority of their respective memberships, must be abolished. Similarly, it must be made clear that, as the property of the IU is the property of the membership, the property of each local is the property of the local s membership and, as such, is subject exclusively to the control of the local and not subject to confiscation by the IU. 4. Transparency. The GEB and other officers of the International Union should have the constitutional right to be promptly provided with any information they deem necessary or useful in carrying out their democratic functions. This includes a full and detailed accounting of the use of the Union s resources (whether in the form of disbursements to affiliates, contributions to political and lobbying purposes, or other expenditures), of any negotiations in which the President(s) or other officials of the International are engaged, and all other business of the International Union. 5. Fairness in Allocation of Funds and Resources: Per capita taxes extracted by the IU from affiliates are too high. As a perverse result, far too many affiliates are not financially self-sufficient and, instead, are dependent for their day-to-day operations on subsidies from the IU. That is not only inefficient, but creates the potential for abuse, with subsidies denied to affiliates of dissidents and porkbarrel subsidies granted to political allies. Instead of impoverishing the affiliates and then doling out subsidies, the IU should reduce per capita taxes so the affiliates can keep the resources they need to operate and remain financially

5 independent. The IU s revenue should be used only to pay for the legitimate operating, organizing, research and political expenses of the IU, and subsidies to affiliates should only be given in exceptional cases when an affiliate is in dire straights. These flaws must be remedied by, among other things, reducing per capita; instituting a system requiring disclosure to the affiliates and pre-approval by the GEB of any subsidies to affiliates; pre-approval by the GEB of expenditures over a certain amount; and requiring disclosure of and GEB approval for the annual budget. 6. Protection for Dissidents and Reliable Due Process Rights. The Constitution should protect rank and file members, affiliate officers and IU officers from retaliation for expressing their opinions, voting, or running for office. Hearings involving charges against affiliates or officers should be subject to the full panoply of procedural protections required by the due process doctrine, including the right to be heard before an independent arbitrator selected from a neutral source. 7. Enforceability. There must be strong mechanisms to enable the GEB to effectively stop abuses of Presidential power, especially when there is but one President. 8. Zero Tolerance for Corruption. Our Union cannot allow corruption in any form, including actions by the President(s) or other officers to surrender Union control of the assets we hold on behalf of our members. I believe constitutional reforms such as these are clearly necessary. No one in the current political conflict within our Union would want to live under the current Constitution if the Presidents of their choice do not emerge victorious at the Convention. I would argue that these reforms would benefit the entire Union, no matter which Presidents are elected. I hope that an honest Union-wide debate, among the leaders of the International Union and the affiliates, about reforming the Constitution will help to heal the breach between us. I also believe that now is a good time to begin this process. I propose Peter Ward to serve as Chairman of the Convention s Constitution Committee, and I intend to propose this appointment to President Raynor. I am willing to meet with any of the leaders of our Union to attempt to work out a plan of constitutional reform that the entire Union could be proud of.