The CSEA election brouhaha (OR: who cares about the invisible worker?)

December 11:
     EXPOSERY. I feel uncomfortable taking sides in others' disputes. Outsiders often don’t know all the facts and have trouble getting to them.
     On the other hand, over the years, I have found that people with the least power are often abused and unchampioned. They ain't got squat. And so it is good that they have at least one feeble tool at their disposal (DtB!)—even if it does no more than expose their situation to a larger world, however imperfectly.
     So here goes. (See yesterday's post.)

     DISENFRANCHISERY. I’ve been examining some documents regarding the CSEA election brouhaha. The issue is that some classified union members’ work shifts make their participation in the scheduled Thursday, December 16, election inconvenient or impractical. The election is set for 6:00 a.m. to noon, while the swing shift is from 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (Further, some workers live some distance from South County.) They have asked to be accommodated in some way. Union officials have asserted that the accommodation is now impossible.
     One document I have read is an email to the chapter’s leadership, dated November 30, sent by a member (member X) on behalf of the IVC swing shift. It alerts leadership to the disenfranchisement problem for swing shift workers. It requests that swing shift voters be given the opportunity to vote the day before the scheduled voting day. It asserts that an accommodation has already been made for the Saddleback College swing shift.

     ABJECT PIQUERY. A few minutes later, in an email, the chapter president responds with anger, “shouting” (with caps) that no accommodation has been made by anyone for anyone and that the member should stop listening to people “that don’t know what they are talking about.”
     Four hours later, member X receives yet another email. This time the president apologizes for her “curt response,” which she explains by citing stress caused by complaints.
     She asserts that the chapter must follow the constitution and bylaws. The accommodation is unavailable.

     ARGUMENTUM AD REGIONAL DUDEM. I’ve seen another document, an email sent Dec. 7 to “classified staff.” It purports to be from the Chapter 586 president and the chapter’s “executive board.” It cites the chapter’s constitution, which (evidently) asserts that the election “shall be conducted on the day scheduled for the December Chapter meeting” [Dec. 16] and that “polls will close prior to the start of the Chapter meeting.”
     The email then explains that

The E Board has received requests for balloting to be opened on December 16, 2010 from 12:00 midnight to 1:00 a.m., then closed until 6:00 a.m. so the swing and graveyard shifts would have the opportunity to vote. We have consulted with CSEA Regional Rep. [RM] for clarification and guidance. [RM] has strongly recommended that the hours be consistent, and that the polls not be opened, closed, then opened again.

     The letter then explains the history of the chapter’s recent revision of its constitution. The chief change, which was widely discussed and promulgated, allows simultaneous polling at both campuses (rather than only at the location of the meeting). And so, says the email, “we are moving in the right direction.”
     It also notes, peevishly, that “no one came to us until now to register an issue regarding the days/times for voting.” That is, they should have made their objections during the revision process.

     CONFUSITUDINAL. This is confusing to me. Nothing cited from the constitution in this email forbids opening, then closing, then opening the polls again on the 16th. It is not the constitution, but (if one is to go by the above email) the advice of CSEA employee RM that appears to block the suggested accommodation.
     Possibly, RM’s advice is good (more on that later). But why does this email imply that sticking to the existing polling schedule (which disenfranchises swing shift workers) is demanded by the constitution when, evidently, it is merely advised by the regional union rep?
     The letter then asserts that

Unfortunately, it is impossible to accommodate all employees during their work shift. Balloting for CSEA Executive Board Officers will take place December 16, 2010 beginning at 6:00 a.m. and will close at 12:00 noon at both IVC and Saddleback Campuses.

     But, again, the problem is that some workers start their shift in late afternoon and quit in the early morning hours. How are they supposed to vote between 6:00 a.m. and noon?

     YOU DE MAN, NO? A day later, in an email, member X presses the matter, noting that, according to the constitution, the chapter president determines voting hours. The member again asks for the accommodation and suggests that the meeting be moved to late afternoon (and the voting period increased or shifted accordingly) in order to accommodate swing shift workers.
     A few minutes later, in an email, a union official responds, noting problems with the member’s suggestions. Shifting the meeting time to late afternoon would inconvenience other classified workers (at Saddleback College), who would have to drive in traffic. Further, there just aren’t enough volunteers to man the voting booths as per the suggested accommodation (evidently, the official assumes that the accommodation would entail expanding poll hours from noon to 5:00 p.m.—on top of the original 6:00 a.m. to noon period).

     I WORK AND SLAVE ALL DAY. The official ends the email by expressing frustration. Prior to the revision of the chapter's constitution, things were even more inconvenient for voters. Now that members can at least vote on their own campus, people start to complain! Why didn’t people bring up these problems during the revision process?
     Again, I find the last point confusing. I have not seen the chapter’s constitution or bylaws, but going by the portion cited by the chapter leadership in the above email, nothing in the constitution precludes a somewhat complicated polling schedule (on the 16th) to accommodate workers. It may not be best practice to start and stop and start again, but surely it is very bad practice to actually disenfranchise members!
     It appears that the union leadership has weighed these two problems and has decided that disenfranchisement is less weighty, less worrisome than voting period discontinuity.
     One suggested accommodation is allowing swing shift workers to vote the day before the meeting. The current constitution does indeed appear to preclude that fix. The voting must occur on the day of the meeting.
     Still, one wonders how it can be that it did not occur to drafters of the constitution revision to loosen the scheduling of the election, given the difficulties arising from membership working multiple shifts?
     And, again, surely disenfranchisement of voters is the last thing a union should permit.

     CORRECT ME IF I'M ROY. But perhaps I don’t have all of the facts. Or perhaps I’m not understanding something.

     Yesterday, one union officer (?) wrote us to say that

For years … the chapter constitution required that voting for officer elections take place at the regularly scheduled December meeting. … So, until this year, classified staff had to attend the December chapter meeting … 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.

     Is this writer suggesting, contrary to the email quoted above, that the constitution sets out the specific hours for polling? I can’t tell. But the writer has no point unless she is saying precisely that.
     Does anyone know the answer?
     The part of the constitution quoted in the above email includes the following: “Balloting shall be conducted at such times and at campus site locations as determined by the Chapter President.”
     This strongly suggests (to me) that, no, the constitution does not set out the voting hours; rather, it leaves that matter to the “Chapter President.”

     DISCONTINUIPHOBIA. And so, again, I am confused. Union leadership seem to be saying that the (revised) constitution demands that the voting hours remain as they are presently scheduled. But that would appear not to be the case. Rather, the setting of voting “times” would appear to be at the discretion of the chapter president, and it appears that the president has opted not to permit any accommodation, based, perhaps, on the advice of union regional rep RM.
     If so (it seems to me), it is fair to ask: why is the chapter president more concerned about voting time discontinuity than about voter disenfranchisement?

Can I help?

     NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. It is clear that some union officers are annoyed that they make sacrifices and then receive nothing but carping. I can sympathize.
     Still, the other side of this thing is: voters are disenfranchised. That’s pretty damned serious!
     I’m not particularly impressed with the “hell, it used to be worse” argument. Frankly, I’m amazed that the organization has operated under such absurd voting procedures for so long. That the situation was once worse than it now is doesn’t say much for this particular chapter.
     No doubt some of you want to rebut my points, such as they are. Well, have at it! But do try to be clear!

     LAST REFUGE OF THE DISSENTER. This is how democracy is supposed to work, you know. Now, YOU RESPOND. Just the facts, ma'm. (We won't be suppressin' nuttin'. Not our style.)