|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Protest Activity |
|
Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
Current rating: 0 |
by John Hilty
Email: jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified!) |
10 Aug 2004
|
|
A rally by employees and their supporters was held at the Satellite office of the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District to protest the anti-union tactics of administrator Dave King and health board members Linda Cross and Carol Elliott. They also protested the lay-offs of two dental hygienists and the suspension of child dental services. |
A protest rally was held at the Satellite Office of the Champaign-Urbana
Public Health District (CUPHD) on 815 N. Randolph, Champaign, Illinois, during
the late afternoon of August 9th (Mon.), 2004. It included CUPHD employees and
their supporters in the community. The protest was timed to coincide with a
meeting of the health board within the Satellite Office, which received input
from some of the protesters during a public comment session. Some board members
appeared to be ill at ease during this session.
The leaders of the
protest on the outside were Jerry Wright and Kathy Reardon, who are CUPHD
employees (see the photo below). Approximately 30 people participated in the
protest by holding signs and chanting various slogans, like "No Contract, No
Peace!" and "We need a Leader, Not a King!" Many employees are unhappy with the
anti-union tactics of CUPHD Administrator Dave King and the majority of health
board members (including Linda Cross & Carol Elliott).
 Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Office The employees believe that the management has engaged in a campaign of
union-busting and intimidation after their labor union, AFSCME, won a
certification election during November of last year. This includes the
following:
1) CUPHD has spent up to $50,000 in tax dollars to hire a
local lawyer and a notorious union-busting law firm from Chicago who are
attempting to nullify the certification election in court.
2) Two
members of the union bargaining committee, who are both dental hygienists, were
laid off from their jobs earlier this summer under suspicious
circumstances.
3) Representatives of management have been stalling at
the bargaining table, rather than negotiating in good faith, pending the
outcome of the legal challenge to the certification election in
court.
4) Inside the workplace, there is reportedly a vicious campaign
of anti-union intimidation taking place.
If true, many of these tactics
would violate laws governing labor-management relations, and could produce
sanctions against the management of CUPHD by the Illinois Labor Relations Board
or the National Labor Relations Board. As a result of such tactics, the morale
of employees has declined significantly during the past several months.
 Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Office The two dental hygienists, Pam Roberts and Michelle Kramer, have worked
at CUPHD for 25 years and 10 years, respectively. They were laid off from their
jobs after the dentist at CUPHD decided to return to school. Currently,
administrators are seeking another dentist for this vacant position. According
to the two dental hygienists, whenever this happened in the past, they were
never laid off. They suspect that they they were laid off because of their
participation in the bargaining committee and other union-related activities.
Furthermore, when CUPHD hires another dentist, they've been told that they
"may" be rehired if "they are needed." At the present time, CUPHD has suspended
all child dental services in Champaign County, including public outreach
programs.
|
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
County Board Democrats who are in the majority created this monster, let them deal with it. The CUPHD was a boondoggle to begin with. If this money were paid to the private sector to treat children who could not afford to pay, it would have served more children without creating the immense administrative nightmare that exists today.
This program should be restructured to let local dental practices bid on the money that was set aside to fund this program.
The children will get better care and market forces will determine the price of that care.
Jack |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Aug 2004
|
Jack Ryan:
I'm not sure what your post has to do with the price of eggs. How does your free-market prescription apply to the antiunion campaign that is apparently occurring? Are you implying or stating outright that the CUPHD should be dissolved? If so or if not, what does that have to do with the allegations of discipline via layoff for union activists? How does your suggestion to privatize these services by opening up the funds for bid relate to the CUPHD's antiunion animus and actions? Are you referring to the $50,000 in tax dollars spent on a union-busting law firm (Seyfarth-Shaw, BTW), or the entire budget of the CUPHD? Please for the love of pizza elaborate.
Frankly Jack, this is what bothers me as much as anything about your posts. It isn't that you're unintelligent, or that you don't think about things, or that you don't care about the world and at least some of the people around you. It's that what you say is either at best tangentially related to the crux of the post, or mired in your own cul-de-sac of personal concerns and complaints. Maybe the CUPHD HAS been a boondoggle to begin with; I certainly don't know much about its past, and am willing to think broadly about it as an institution. But, again, how does your prescription relate to the CUPHD's antiunion behavior?
Lastly, how do patients gain when "market forces...determine the price of that care?" Market forces, affected by many factors and mindsets, have driven health-care costs so high that tens of millions lack health care. This includes mainly working Americans, wo follow the right-wing rhetorical prescriptions for pursuing happiness in America (hard work, emphasis on self-reliance, striving for financial stability and self-sufficiency for themselves and their families, et cetera) yet still fall behind. Health care is not only a right but essential for national improvement. Think of all the wasted human potential because of illnesses and diseases that could have been ameliorated, prevented or eliminated if health care were affordable, if costs were managed not by the free market but by a sound, managed, national health care policy. But again, THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THE FIRST POST.
Before you tackle my last point, be sure to address my first instead. If any exchange turns into prattling on about the virtues of the free market as it does or ought to apply to health care, you might as well speak with your monitor. The post concerns a rally against the CUPHD's labor practices. Let's talk about THAT, not using the post as an opportunity to trumpet tra-la-la-ing down the primrose path to a free-market utopia. |
|
Free Market...But For Who? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Aug 2004
|
JK,
Your points are all well-taken (although they will probably be treated like pearls before the swine when Jack struts into the pen...but I digress.)
Unfortunately, Jack thinks the principals of the "free market" are only available to capital and should stay that way. Workers should have no opportunity to act together in their own interest because that undermines management's "free market" by leveling the playing field. And there is nothing a capitalist hates more than a level playing field. |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Aug 2004
|
Dear JK,
First let me say that you are right in that I was "off topic" here. This is a labor issue and not about the programs validity.
Two points: The Democrats, who historically are the friends of labor, are now dealing with labor issues for programs that they created and are addressing with union busting law firms (as you say) in order to keep expenses down. This is not a problem specific to the CUPHD. This labor unrest is also coming from the County Nursing Home etc, the AFSCME and the other unions who thought that as a result of a majority left leaning board that they were now on easy street.
Unfortunately, the never say no, democrat county board is now facing the reality of having to balance a budget.
During its conception, I argued forcefully that the CUPHD could be done by bidding the indigent child dental care program out to local providers who already had the infrastructure to support the demand for dental care that the taxpayors clearly wanted.
I felt that the private sector (I know bad words) would compete to gain market share as they always and must do, in order to fill a demand, subsidized by willing taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the democrats lost site of the admirable goal of providing free or low cost dental services to the less fortunate and built a monster that they themselves are now trying to slay.
Call it what you want, but you can't tell me that under the current structure the needs of the children are being met in this ongoing labor dispute. This is what happens with virtually every program that have good intentions and can not live under the labor rules that they impose upon small private sector business without a second thought.
As for your question on health care in general, first, I do not believe it is a right. One needs food to survive, and that is not listed as a right. Perhaps you can show me in the Bill of Rights were this is stated. People do need healthcare, no question. No one who goes to seek treatment for an illness is denied healthcare. That is not only a law, it is a fact. Secondly, the physicians themselves take a boatload of indigent care and write off a considerable amount of uncollectable debt. I would be willing to bet that if they would be assured of no law suit and that they would not be overburdened with a ton of redtape paperwork trying to collect public aid funds that they are providing at a loss anyway, that the indigent problem could be easily settled with a properly monitored compensation program covering their costs and allowing them to make a small profit.
The problem with healthcare is that their is very little competition in its delivery. Carle and Provena have successfully split the town down the middle fixing inflated prices because that is what the person's health insurance demands. A person who has a Carle network is penalized by their health plan for getting care outside the network People are unable to shop for healthcare. They can go out to bid on their ailments. They must first see a gatekeeper who then must refer to a specialist only within their own network of physicians. This is nuts. Can you tell me where the market forces apply here?
As for ML, again I thank you for the high expectations that you place on me. I am sorry for being "off topic" as you say. My first post was off topic and should have been hidden. Truthfully, I have just come to expect that regardless of the post.
In any event, the problem still remains. The needs of the children are not being met and the government solution has failed. Perhaps we need to think outside the box here.
Jack |
|
This is reporting? |
by cpov
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Aug 2004
|
> 1) CUPHD has spent up to $50,000 in tax
> dollars to hire a local lawyer
> and a notorious union-busting law firm from
> Chicago who are attempting to nullify the
> certification election in court.
They are not attempting to nullify it--they are attempting to *verify* that it was done legally. There is a big difference here.
> 2) Two members of the union bargaining
> committee, who are both dental
> hygienists, were laid off from their jobs earlier
> this summer under suspicious circumstances.
What are the 'suspicious circumstances?' Shall I just take your word for it?
> 3) Representatives of management have been
> stalling at the bargaining
> table, rather than negotiating in good faith,
> pending the outcome of
> the legal challenge to the certification election in > court.
Actually, its the union that has cancelled the last two meetings with very little notice. The CUPHD appears to have been ready and willing to negotiate throughout.
> 4) Inside the workplace, there is reportedly a
> vicious campaign of anti-union intimidation
> taking place.
Like?
> If true, ...
And that's the problem, isn't it. *IF* true.
This article is not reporting--its propaganda.
How about actually looking into the facts before pushing the party line? There are certainly issues to discuss regarding the lack of dental care
going on at the CUPHD, but it doesn't do anyone any good to just spit out the same old misrepresentations.
I'm sorry to see this posted here in this way. If you want to bring up some issues that you think are important, then why not actually do some digging and verify your statements? |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Aug 2004
|
cpov,
My objective was to report this event from the point of view of the protesters. My information came directly from the people who were involved in this event. They appeared to earnestly believe in the statements that they made to members of the press and interested third parties. Therefore, I accomplished the limited objective that I had set out to do.
I'm under no obligation to present the viewpoint of management on this issue -- this is merely an option in the presentation of information. If YOU wish to present the viewpoint of management, I'm not stopping you. I summarily reject your preposterous attempt to tell me what I should or shouldn't report as this interferes with my right to engage in free expression and to report the free expression of others. |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Aug 2004
|
Some "digging around" in cpov's comments:
1) cpov: "They are not attempting to nullify it--they are attempting to *verify* that it was done legally. There is a big difference here."
They are attempting to have the certification election declared illegal by a judge on the basis of a technicality and thus to nullify it. The "big difference" that you refer to simply doesn't exist.
2) cpov: "What are the 'suspicious circumstances?' Shall I just take your word for it?"
I've already explained why the layoffs are suspicious: Read the last paragraph of my article! The dental hygienists, who were both members of the union bargaining committee, stated that such layoffs never occurred in the past when the dentist left, and even when another dentist is rehired, they were told that they MAY be rehired if THEY ARE NEEDED. It is not unreasonable to describe layoffs under such circumstances as "suspicious."
3) "Actually, its the union that has cancelled the last two meetings with very little notice. The CUPHD appears to have been ready and willing to negotiate throughout."
Two members of the union bargaining team were laid off from their jobs under suspicious circumstances, as already explained in #2 above. This occurred earlier this summer. Therefore, it is hardly surprising if this would produce a delay in the negotiations.
4) cpov: "And that's the problem, isn't it[?][sic] *IF* true."
I 've already made it abundantly clear in the article that the viewpoint of CHPHD union members is being expressed:
"The employees believe that the management has engaged in a campaign of union-busting and intimidation after their labor union, AFSCME, won a certification election during November of last year. This includes the following:"
I never pretended to represent the views of management, nor am I in any position to determine whether the allegations of the union are true in any official capacity (this also applies to you). That is the responsibility of the Illinois Labor Relations Board should it be presented with a complaint of unfair labor practices.
Workers at CUPHD have been protesting unfair labor practices at their work site for the past two months. In order to understand WHY they are doing this, it is necessary to present their viewpoint of the situation. This is what I have accomplished. People don't go to the trouble of conducting a protest at their work site on a monthly basis unless there is something happening at the workplace that is deeply troubling to them.
Your comments, cpov, imply that the majority of workers at CUPHD are liars or delusional maniacs who like to engage in protests at their work site for the fun of it, even when there is the risk of being fired or "laid-off" from their jobs by their boss. This is not a tenable position. |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Aug 2004
|
Well done, John Hilty:
While I must admit that I was looking for a little more information from the original post because I take great interest in labor and antilabor issues, I think that your follow-up posts are excellent. All your posts reflect the importance of this topic. cpov's comments were plainly propagandistic, especially the notion that Seyfarth Shaw, the law firm that he neglects to name or mention that it often helps employers to keep workplaces "union-free," is simply hired to verify the results of the union election. Anyone familiar enough with the process knows that that is the task of the National Labor Relations Board, not a corporate law firm with a history of assisting and advising employers in preventing unions from organizing. Clearly, this comment of cpov was nothing more than unvarnished nonsense.
cpov also conveniently ignores that what is occurring at CUPHD is very typical of what unions endure in this era, namely, employer challenges to union elections that are not their business, delays in bargaining the first contract and thus deadening the momentum that the union gains through the election victory, and employers' dubious dismissal of pro-union employees. Clearly you took cpov's comments personally, as well you should have for they challenged your veracity and integrity. You responded well and ought to be proud of yourself not only for being on the right side of things, but for writing about information that mainstream media often ignores. Bravo! |
|
In Brief Response to Jack Ryan |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Aug 2004
|
Jack:
I'm glad to see that you acknowledged being off topic in your initial post, although your follow-up seemed more of the same. I will only make two comments in direct response to your post. The first is that I sincerely hope that you are not treating the Bill of Rights as the alpha and omega of rights in this country. Not only would you not find affordable health care mentioned as a right in the Bill of Rights [the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and yes, I added affordable since health care that many cannot afford is bad for patients, bad for health-care workers and bad for health care as a business that to you feel ought to be open to "free-market" forces, but more on that later...]. You would also not find any mention of the rights of workers organize, bargain and act collectively, yet that certainly is a right. Nor would you find mention or assurances of the right of women, African-Americans and other racial and ethnic groups to vote. Nor would you find mention of or mechanisms for the right of citizens to vote for their senators. In other words, concepts of rights have grown and changed, thankfully, from the period over two hundred years ago in which the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Nota Bene, that the Bill of Rights was a set of amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, highlighting some of the inadequacies of the long-standing document.
Second, your statement, "Secondly, the physicians themselves take a boatload of indigent care and write off a considerable amount of uncollectable debt. I would be willing to bet that if they would be assured of no law suit and that they would not be overburdened with a ton of redtape paperwork trying to collect public aid funds that they are providing at a loss anyway, that the indigent problem could be easily settled with a properly monitored compensation program covering their costs and allowing them to make a small profit," seems to contradict your earlier prescription for the free market application to health care. Your statement does not deal with costs, and I would posit that increasing compensation would not necessarily provide either greater access to health care or more affordable health care. The problem in many instances is stagnant and insufficient incomes. I for one would not favor increased competition in health care if it simply meant ratcheting up pressure on health-care companies to squeeze their workers' salaries and benefits. I back a national, single-payer system which by the way would also eliminate much of the "red tape," admonistrative costs, and problem of affordability that we all seem to recognize.
Can't we all just get along..? |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Aug 2004
|
If we are going to shift this discussion from labor issues to health care accessibility and affordability, I might as well make a few comments in response to some of Jack Ryan's posts.
Some of his assertions seem dubious to me:
1) He states that health care isn't a right, even though people need it in order to survive, like food. I would like to know how many dead people enjoy such human rights as free speech and participation in democratic government? Without life, there are no human rights, whether political or material. If people are denied such necessities as food, shelter, and health care, then they will die and enjoy no human rights whatsoever. So it is not possible to exercise political rights without having access to material rights, such as health care. In order for free speech and participation in democratic government to be rights, it follows that such necessities as food, shelter, and health care are also rights, as the existence of the former is contingent on the latter.
2) Jack Ryan states: "No one who goes to seek treatment for an illness is denied healthcare." Actually, this is not correct. The law only requires that hospitals accept patients who are in need of emergency medicare care. All other kinds of health care can be denied, and often is because of a patient's financial status. Furthermore, many people don't even bother to seek the health care that they need because they can't afford it. It should be noted that seeking health care in an emergency room is the most expensive and least efficient way to provide health care services -- preventive health care is often cheaper, but there is no legal obligation to provide this to uninsured people in the United States.
3) Jack Ryan states: "Secondly, the physicians themselves take a boatload of indigent care and write off a considerable amount of uncollectable debt." I would like to know where these physicians are located: Is it Cuba? Here in the United States, if you don't pay the bills that they send you, more often than not their attorneys will take you into court and grab every penny that they can in order to sustain a luxury lifestyle. Unfortunately, charity among physicians is more the exception than the rule. Many health care bills are bloated far beyond their actual costs -- particularly the ones that are sent to people without health insurance.
4) Jack Ryan also implies that people would be better off with a private health care system that is driven by market forces. I've seen little evidence to verify this. People often complain about the denial or unavailability of health care services through their private HMO's and the inability to choose their own doctors. Furthermore, many private insurance companies won't provide affordable policies to people with pre-existing conditions. They tend to be "cherry-pickers" -- meaning they like to sell health insurance to people who are healthy and young, while dumping everyone else onto the lap of big government. |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Aug 2004
|
John Hilty:
I think that your points are very good ones. However, and I say this having my own posts in mind as well, I believe that we ought to concentrate more on the labor aspect of this issue. It isn't as though the health-care side is not worthy of discussion. Yet I posit that Jack Ryan's posts serve as a distraction from the major points of most if not all of the initial posts on which he/she comments.
Speak all you like about health-care issues. But I for one would like to hear more about how the CUPHD is part of a greater antilabor whole consistently attacking the rights of labor to organize, negotiate and act collectively, increasingly so in the health-care field. |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by Karla Grimes
karla.grimes (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2004
|
I am a CUPHD employee and I DO NOT support the union.
The accusations made by union representatives are, at best, exaggerated. The two dental Hygentists who were laid off could not have performed their duties as Hygentists without a practicing dentist. They were not laid off under ANY suspicious circumstances.
The Union has violated my privacy time and time again by visiting my house at all hours of the day , including weekends. In addition, some of the "Union supporters " at public health have repeatedly used questionable tactics to get others to sign the initial Union registrar.
Not only have some of the "loudest" pro-union supporters spent YOUR tax dollars forwarding their agenda on business hours, they have made it a hostile and uncomfortable enviornment for those who do not support their cause.
If our union would actually focus on the needs of the overall staff of the health department , rather than the jobs of 2 hygentists, I might actually feel they are doing their job. Instead, the Union has spent countless hours defending the jobs of the two hygentists who were rightly laid off from their positions.
Because of "Union" contract negotiations, I will not be getting a cost of living pay increase this year. Many of our nurses are hired to work for under $30K a year, and will not be getting salary increases because ALL of our contracts now have to be renegotiated because of the Union. The law firm HAD to be hired for CUPHD in order to handle such contract negotiations.
I am proud to be a CUPHD employee and support the leadership of our agency. Our public health department continues to work with limited resourses to provide care to many of the people around the area. |
|
Re: Employees Protest Anti-Union Activities of Management at CUPHD Satellite Office |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Aug 2004
|
Karla Grimes states:
"The two dental Hygentists who were laid off could not have performed their duties as Hygentists without a practicing dentist. They were not laid off under ANY suspicious circumstances."
I wonder if you would feel the same way if YOU were laid off from your job under similar circumstances.
It is my understanding that a new law in Illinois allows dental hygienists to provide some services without the on-site supervision of a dentist, and a proposal was made to the CUPHD board during July to attract dentists on a volunteer basis until a new dentist was hired. And yet, the CUPHD board rejected this proposal: The exact wording of the information that I have received has been reproduced below.
I did not report this in the original article, but perhaps should have, in light of Ms. Grime's comment.
------------------------------------
"Lisa Bell, who operates the Child Dental Access Program, spoke at the July 12 CUPHD Board meeting. She announced that a new Illinois law has passed that allows dental hygienists to provide certain services without having to be supervised by a dentist. This means, that the two laid off dental hygienists could be providing clinical oral health services to children right now. Ms. Bell offered her voluntary services to organize area dentists to come to the CUPHD dental clinic on a volunteer basis, so that the dentists could see children, write a treatment order, and allow the CUPHD hygienists to treat hundreds of Champaign-Urbana children for several months without direct supervision by a dentist. Ms. Bell could put this together within a month."
"CUPHD turned her down. This shows that the CUPHD Administrator and Board DID, in fact, lay off their dental hygienists as part of their union-busting efforts -- and that the CUPHD Administrator and Board clearly care more about union-busting than about the health and welfare of Champaign-Urbana children."
----------------- |
|
