Friday, December 10, 2010

IVC: custodial/maintenance workers disenfranchised?

December 10:
     Evidently, the local chapter of the CSEA is holding an election next week to choose officers, and it appears to have perturbed some members.
     Earlier today, an Irvine Valley College employee told me that the campus custodial/maintenance workers (there are about 13 of 'em) object to a circumstance according to which the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (swing) shift are left with no practical way to vote. The C/M crew have asked that these members be accommodated in some way—after all, some of them have been in the union for many years—but they have been informed by leadership, my source says, that the bylaws will not permit this.
     Meanwhile (according to my source), a similar request for accommodation produced positive results at Saddleback College.
     So what gives?
     My source speculates that this circumstance, or at least the unwillingness to accommodate the disenfranchised members, is an effort to protect existing leadership, for the C/M crew are a voting block that is unhappy with the status quo, leadershipwise (at IVC).
     A petition has circulated in favor of the accommodation, but, thus far, the effort has only yielded the charge that the disenfranchised members are “whiners.”
     Or so says my source.

UPDATE:

     Just after 6:00 p.m., someone who identifies herself as Delores Brooks Irwin (see blogs) wrote in to say:

     This is total B.S.
     For years – certainly before I came to SOCCCD, the chapter constitution required that voting for officer elections take place at the regularly scheduled December meeting. The meetings would alternate between campuses. So, until this year, classified staff had to attend the December chapter meeting – whether or not it was held at their home campus – in order to vote. This year, the executive board revised the constitution, with the major change being that voting would occur on both campuses, and the hours of voting would be extended, in order to make it available to more members. We heavily advertised this coming change, and gave opportunities at both campuses to provide input. NOBODY DID. So the revised constitution was sent up to regional and state CSEA and approved just in time for this year's election.
     Then a little group of members at IVC decided they didn't like the current regime and began attacking the E Board with all kinds of bogus charges, including the controversy about the voting times. Voting used to be at one campus, with a two-hour window. Now voting is available at both campuses, and polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.
     Last year we couldn't even get anyone to run against the incumbents, and that has been the situation many years. What changed this year? I have no idea. The cost/benefit ratio for being on this board is heavy on the cost. That's why there usually are no opponents.
     Anyway, a shit-storm has ensued at IVC, with no basis, as far as I'm concerned. And they have even brought it to this forum. You'd think this was Brown-Whitman all over again.

     Amazing [END]

A few minutes later, the same person (evidently) wrote in to say...

     And I have to add one more thing. Saddleback campus was given an extra accommodation not offered to IVC? Are you kidding? (I explained this on my own blog, by the way.) The current makeup of the board: 2 district, 1 Saddleback, 4 IVC. Do you really think Saddleback is ever going to be favored over IVC on an issue? [END]

DISSENT the BLOG is glad to offer an opportunity for dialogue concerning issues of concern in our community. For those who wish to comment: please stick to verifiable facts and avoid name-calling or mere unsupported charges/claims. Uncivil remarks or apparently unwarranted claims will be deleted.

8 comments:

  1. I am sure that what you heard isn't true.

    If the local doesn't accomodate the request and a select group of workers is disenfranchised - well then the workers can file with the NLRB. They can get an injunction to stop the election - or if it goes forward first - to overturn the results.

    ReplyDelete
  2. YOU CAN EMAIL THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HERE:

    questions@nlrb.gov.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is total B.S.
    For years - certainly before I came to SOCCCD, the chapter constitution required that voting for officer elections take place at the regularly scheduled December meeting. The meetings would alternate between campuses. So, until this year, classified staff had to attend the December chapter meeting - whether or not it was held at their home campus - in order to vote. This year, the executive board revised the constitution, with the major change being that voting would occur on both campuses, and the hours of voting would be extended, in order to make it available to more members. We heavily advertised this coming change, and gave opportunities at both campuses to provide input. NOBODY DID. So the revised constitution was sent up to regional and state CSEA and approved just in time for this year's election.
    Then a little group of members at IVC decided they didn't like the current regime and began attacking the E Board with all kinds of bogus charges, including the controversy about the voting times. Voting used to be at one campus, with a two-hour window. Now voting is available at both campuses, and polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Last year we couldn't even get anyone to run against the incumbents, and that has been the situation many years. What changed this year? I have no idea. The cost/benefit ratio for being on this board is heavy on the cost. That's why there usually are no opponents.
    Anyway, a shit-storm has ensued at IVC, with no basis, as far as I'm concerned. And they have even brought it to this forum. You'd think this was Brown-Whitman all over again. Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Delores Brooks Irwin6:11 PM, December 10, 2010

    And I have to add one more thing. Saddleback campus was given an extra accommodation not offered to IVC? Are you kidding? (I explained this on my own blog, by the way.) The current makeup of the board: 2 district, 1 Saddleback, 4 IVC. Do you really think Saddleback is ever going to be favored over IVC on an issue?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Instead of deleting the comment (posted at 3:32) below, I edited it a bit. Now here this: you work against yourself if you depend on name-calling and unsupported charges. People won’t take you seriously.
    My advice: if you object to some group, identify your strongest point, and make that. Make it clearly, make it well. Don’t try to make many points at once. E.g., the “racist” and “reassigned time” charges below weaken the rhetoric (IMO). –BvT


    The bottom line is this, each year the night shift employees get shafted on this vote issue and each year the current officers don't take the time to make an amendment to the constitution to accommodate the night shift. Why? Because people like Delores and Shanna only care about looking out for themselves. The have abused the system. [OK. HOW SO EXACTLY?] The night shift folks want a change but can not vote for a change because the current group of selfish ** [TSK, TSK] (Mainly the "** the Racist Pig" [IF YOU MAKE THIS KIND OF CHARGE, YOU’VE GOT TO BACK IT UP, DUDE] and "Release-Time ***" [DITTO] who takes twenty hours of "release time" to run personal errands) have written the by-laws to their advantage. There should be an audit of the due funds, It has been said that …[OK, IT’S BEEN SAID. BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE?].
    The main reason why many Saddleback classified employees are not participating in the CSEA is that they are tired of not being heard, they are tired of not being represented in a fair and respectable manner. Many times this past year Shanna and the current board have taking the sides of management first over the folks they are to represent.
    There have been times that at our union meetings only 3-4 people show. That is pretty pathetic.

    And just because a few folks want to run for an office doesn't mean they have a grudge or made this personal. They are standing up for what is right. The current group of ** [C’MON, DUDE] csea board members are scared, because they know their times of bullcrap and abusing the system are over.
    I am glad a few people are willing to run for CSEA office there needs to be a change.

    A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE FOR THE CURRENT CSEA BOARD. They suck.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 6:02 pm you hit it right on the nail...man you are good.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's somethings not considered. 1. The relationship between union and employees will get no closer but further a part. 2.Employees will find it hard to associate with union members thus losing a a voice on IVC and support for the union.3. There has been talk about finding another union.4.Employees will only play the part with the union and go outside of the union to get the job done leaving the union once again looking bad. The job of the union is to bring unity between the employer and employee but how will that work if there is no unity with the union themselves.UNION GT IT TOGETHER OR YOU MAY LOSE A STRONG VOICE AT IVC IF YOU CAN DO THIS FOR THEM THEN DO IT,STOP THE PRIDE,ANGER WHATEVER IT IS AND GET IT DONE OR BOTH SIDES WILL LOSE.

    ReplyDelete

Trolls and flamers will be cursed by our team of black magicians