Originally published September 9, 2006
Despite massive
pressure from hundreds of Local 1000 members, the Local 1000, dominated
by supporters of Local 1000 Officers Jim Hard and Cathy Hackett,
approved a dues increase plan at the Council's special meeting Sep 8 in
Sacramento. The vote was 50 Yes, 8 No and one abstention.
The dues hike will
close a $7 million gap in the union's budget and fund Hard and Hackett's grandiose plan for a "21st Century Union"
and will result in raising most members' dues by 50 percent effective
April 2007 to 1.5 percent with a $90 cap and will increase again to 1.75
percent with a $135 cap.* This is expected to bring in an additional $17
million more in revenues to the union's coffers. The proposal now
goes to Local 1000 delegates for a vote tentatively scheduled for
October 21.
Members of the
Council belonging to CSEUnited, a reform group within Local 1000
vigorously fought to bring the dues plan to a membership vote but Jim
Hard rejected most of the requests and his supporters on the Council
rejected efforts to challenge the rulings of the chair.
CSEUnited members
on the Council tried to focus discussion on the union's single largest
expense - the approximately $15 million that Local 1000 sends to SEIU
International in Washington, DC. These costs, part of Local 1000
"affiliation fees" to SEIU, appear to be causing the union’s structural
budget deficit. However, Hard and Hackett again refused to entertain
any real dialogue regarding this issue.
Some of Hard and
Hackett's supporters on the Council repeatedly made reference to the
fact that while they received a lot of calls and emails opposing the
dues hike plan, they claim that the 'silent majority' - essentially
everyone else who did not respond are 'ok' with the proposal. They also
ignored the dozens of members in the audience who overwhelmingly opposed
the dues increase proposal.
This is why it's
important for members to take a very active role in opposing this dues
increase plan. Your silence will be used by Hard & Hackett and their
supporters as a green light to move forward with their agenda.
Note:
Portions of the original
article have been edited because they involved a request for members to
participate in specific actions that have already concluded.
*
Due to heavy pressure from members, the
original dues hike proposal was amended.
