Community-Labor Alliances: Worker Organizing and Big Box Campaigns

List of Articles:

• Author Presentation - The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business by Nelson Lichtenstein
JANUARY 2010

• Building a Bigger Box
JANUARY 2010

• Wal-Mart Drops Santa Rosa Store Plan: Roseland Store Critics Included New City Council Majority
FEBRUARY 2009

• Wal-Mart's Giant Plan for Rohnert Park
APRIL 2009

• Wal-Mart Stalls in Santa Rosa
DECEMBER 2008

• The Petaluma Sheraton Story
MAY 2007

• Petaluma Sheraton Workers Sign First Contract!!
WINTER 2006

• Union Contract Negotiations to Begin at the Petaluma Sheraton
JANUARY 2006

• Statement on Wal-Mart DEIR by Ben Boyce
FEBRUARY 2006

• Unions drum up support in SR Labor activists at town hall meeting accuse local businesses of trampling on workers' rights
JUNE 19, 2005

• Workers rights still getting squeezed
JUNE 18, 2005

• Empire Waste treating people like garbage?
JUNE 2005

• Sonoma Nursing Home Workers Under Attack
MAY 2005

• Petaluma Issues Ultimatum To Garbage Hauler, Union
MAY 3, 2005

• Big-Box Boom: Big-Boxes Are Coming, Bringing Low Wages with Them to Sonoma County
MARCH 2005

• Nursing Home Workers Get Union Representation
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004

• Wal-Mart: Race to the Bottom or Corporate Responsibility?
SEPTEMBER 4, 2004

http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/01.20.10/news-1003.html

North Bay Bohemian
1/20-1/26 2010

Building a Bigger Box
Wal-Mart's proposed Rohnert Park expansion is just part of the usual plan, says UC history professor

By Kylie Mendonca

Nelson Lichtenstein can sound like someone with important news to share when he starts talking about Wal-Mart's contributions to the American and global business worlds. Not one for a pregnant pause or lulls in conversation, Lichtenstein moves seamlessly between his thoughts, fast as they come. For all his excitement over the mega-retailer, Lichtenstein is not singing the praises of cheap products and cheaper labor.

This University of California Santa Barbara history professor, as they say, "wrote the book" on Wal-Mart-literally-penning some 300 pages of history, criticism and personal journey on the company ranging from its sweatshops in China to its corporate home in Arkansas. Lichtenstein will speak and sign copies of his new book, The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business, on Jan. 22 in Santa Rosa.

His arrival has local resonance. In the coming weeks, Rohnert Park city officials will be talking about Wal-Mart, too. The proposed 24-hour Wal-Mart supercenter project will go before the planning commission for review this winter, a proposal to expand the city's current Wal-Mart into a full grocery store. The only other such supercenter in the North Bay is located in American Canyon, though the company is said to have plans to construct one in each California county. Locally owned grocers are concerned, and opposition in Napa County stalled the American Canyon project for three years before it was finally approved.

Under the current proposal, the shopping center could grow by more than 40,000 square feet, ballooning from its current 131,532-square-foot footprint to almost 171,800 square feet. According to the environmental impact report, finalized Jan. 15, the space will bring locals new job opportunities, new shopping convenience-and plenty of new traffic congestion, too.

While neighbors worry that the expansion could put local grocery stores out of business, Lichtenstein focuses on the ripples left by the retailer across the global business landscape. The problem with Wal-Mart, he argues, is not so much found in the trail of small-town retail wreckage it leaves but in the example it sets for other major retailers and their employees. Wal-Mart is less important as a Wal-Mart, Lichtenstein says, "than it is important for what it teaches."

The Wal-Mart model, Lichtenstein says, is low prices bought on the backs of workers. Sure, the consumer saves a buck, but that buck has to come from somewhere, and Lichtenstein argues it comes from the workers in the form of lower wages, scanty benefits and minimal job security. "In general," Lichtenstein says, "they are pulling down the wage level for millions of people"

For Lichtenstein, this trend was underscored some five years ago when a group of grocery store workers in Southern California held massive demonstrations against their corporate bosses. In response to market pressures, he writes, corporations such as Safeway and others asked workers to take pay cuts. The unions, of course, were not keen. Lichtenstein identified this request as a sort of "Wal-Mart effect."

Several local business groups have latched on to Lichtenstein's message. The Living Wage Coalition on Sonoma County, Go Local Sonoma County and the North Bay Labor Council, are among the groups sponsoring Lichtenstein's upcoming talk.

Martin Bennett, co-chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, is among those who oppose the proposed expansion. "The decision by the Rohnert Park city council will be closely watched and, if affirmative, highly controversial, particularly given the rejection by the Santa Rosa city council of a proposed Lowe's Home Improvement store earlier this year," he says. For Bennett, the construction of a supercenter is about more than low wages and what some see as unfair grocery store competition. In addition to an EIR, the Living Wage Coalition consistently seeks community impact reports for such large businesses, looking to measure how the overall quality of life is affected when a big-box retailer comes into town or, as in this case, grows even bigger.

In 2006, Wal-Mart approached the city of Santa Rosa to take over an idle lot in the unincorporated southwest part of town. The corporation finally dropped efforts to build last February after activist groups successfully pressed a lawsuit against the corporation over its environmental impact report. The store's loss meant a half a million dollar estimated loss in Santa Rosa sales tax revenue.

But being sued is part of the Wal-Mart story, according to Lichtenstein. He writes: "When Wal-Mart locates one of its grocery-selling supercenters in metropolitan America, it asserts the legitimacy and power of a brand of capitalism that is antithetical to the regulated marketplace. . . . The company is therefore constantly defending itself against a set of class-action lawsuits." In other words, it's par for the course.

Nelson Lichtenstein appears at Copperfield's Books on Friday, Jan. 22, at 7pm. 2316 Montgomery Drive, Santa Rosa. Free. 707.578.8938.

Wal-Mart Drops Santa Rosa Store Plan: Roseland Store Critics Included New City Council Majority
By Mike McCoy
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Santa Rosa Press Democrat

The decision is a setback for those who eagerly awaited creation of 300 jobs, the mega-chain's low consumer prices and an estimated $500,000 in annual sales tax revenues for beleaguered City Hall.

But it is a victory for critics who claim the world's largest retailer damages communities by engaging in questionable labor and predatory business practices.

Months after Wal-Mart lost an environmental lawsuit financed by labor and social advocacy groups and neighbors of the proposed Roseland-area project, sources say company representatives have told Santa Rosa officials they do not plan to appeal the judge's decision.

It was unclear Monday whether Wal-Mart's pullout is being shaped primarily by the court's rejection of its environmental impact report, or to the fact that the new council has a majority of members who have opposed Wal-Mart and been critical of big-box retailers. Company officials did not return several phone calls Monday seeking comment.

But the situation poses potential hurdles for another big-box chain, Lowe's, which is planning a home improvement center on Santa Rosa Avenue. Lowe's environmental impact report will be up for review Thursday night by the city Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Jane Bender said Wal-Mart's intention was disclosed several weeks ago at an Economic Development Committee meeting. Other sources said they've also received word the company is giving up its Santa Rosa proposal.

"My guess is it wasn't worth the fight, that they saw there was a huge contention against it," said Bender, among the council's minority of Wal-Mart supporters.

City Attorney Caroline Fowler declined to discuss the Wal-Mart matter, noting that the appeal period has not expired. Conceivably, Wal-Mart could prepare a new envronmental assessment, but it spent five years and several hundred thousand dollars on the current one.

Longtime Roseland resident Margot Piccinini said Monday she's disappointed, particularly since efforts to find other businesses to locate in the half-vacant shopping center at Stony Point and Sebastopol roads have been unsuccessful.

"I don't think the unions have the right to stop something because of the hiring practices and rate of pay Wal-Mart offers," she said.

"With the culture in this area we needed something like Wal-Mart. The Hispanic moms could go to work part-time. Wal-Mart is known for entry level jobs, and it has the prices people out here could afford," she said.

Wal-Mart, which has stores in Windsor and Rohnert Park, has been a lightening rod for debate in Santa Rosa. That intensive opposition is expected to resurface Thursday when the Planning Commission considers approving the environmental study for Lowe's proposal for a 155,000-square-foot outlet at the northeast corner of Santa Rosa and Yolanda avenues.

That 10.5-acre project, two years in the planning stages, is expected to generate 175 jobs, $50 million in annual sales and $500,000 in annual sales tax revenues for the city, said Lowe's spokeswoman Maureen Rich.

Many of the same forces that fought Wal-Mart are gearing up to take on Lowe's, citing its impact on traffic and concerns it would drive locally owned home improvement stores out of business.

The nearest local home improvement competitor, Friedman Brothers, is two miles south on Santa Rosa Avenue. Tax revenue generated by that store goes to the county because it is outside Santa Rosa's city limits.

Mayor Susan Gorin, who along with fellow council members Veronica Jacobi, Gary Wysocky and Marsha Vas Dupre, have voiced opposition to Wal-Mart's corporate model, said Wal-Mart's advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages.

"I'm looking at both the impacts on our community and potential benefits," Gorin said. "Anything of that size and scale has the opportunity to provide jobs and sales tax and we would welcome that," she said.

"But look at Wal-Mart's business model. Does it equal out? What are the salaries they pay, can those with jobs there afford to live in Santa Rosa or must they commute? Will they force others out of business? And their impacts will further congest our streets resulting in the need for more traffic signals, road widening and school crossing guards," she said.

"We as a city are having a hard time providing services, but I'm not sure Wal-Mart is worth it," she said.

As for Lowe's, Gorin said "I haven't heard much other than there are thoughtful people in the community raising objections to their environmental impact report," she said.

Bender, however, called Wal-Mart's decision to leave "a setback."

"When you look at Wal-Marts across the nation they are doing better than other stores. This one would have brought in revenue that everyone knows we need, and it would have been a place for those in Roseland where they could go and shop and at prices they could afford," she said.

The opposition Wal-Mart faced and the city's recent move to impose tougher development standards on big-box stores did not go unnoticed by Lowe's The company mailed more than 12,000 brochures to Santa Rosa homeowners several weeks ago, providing details of what it planned and attached a postcard supporters could return to show their support.

"It was an opportunity to educate residents and inform them of a great opportunity," said Lowe's spokeswoman Maureen Rich. "In this economic climate it's a proposal that will bring jobs, sales tax revenues and increase property tax values, all factors that should be considered by residents," she said.

Among the leading critics of Lowe's is the Accountable Development Coalition, a group of labor, environmental, housing and neighborhood groups. It's chairman and vice chairman are Michael Allen and Nick Caston, both members of the city Planning Commission.

Despite those ties, city attorney Fowler said both can vote on Lowe's "if they believe they can be unbiased."

Allen, president of the North Bay Labor Council, one of the groups that funded the Wal-Mart lawsuit, and Caston both said they plan to vote on the matter.

Caston, who's been on the commission since 2006, said he avoids coalition issues that deal with Santa Rosa planning matters. Allen said he has avoided discussing Lowe's since he was appointed to the commission two months ago.

"I have to make it (decision) independently based on the planning documents and evidence submitted," Allen said.

One source indicated Friedman's is financially assisting those battling the Lowe's project.

Friedman's chief financial officer, David Proctor, however, denied the charge.

"We are obviously very concerned. We think it's a bad move for Santa Rosa," he said. While his company has hired local political consultant Herb Williams to monitor Lowe's planning progress, Proctor said "We are not funding any oppositional element of an anti-Lowe's group."

You can reach Staff Writer Mike McCoy at 521-5276 or mike.mccoy@pressdemocrat.com.

The Living Wage Coalition was part of the coalition that opposed the Santa Rosa Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart's Giant Plan for Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
April 23, 2009

A Proposed Expansion of the Rohnert Park Wal-Mart Would Give it all the Features of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Though No Name Change is Planned.

By Kevin McCallum

If approved, the 35,000-square-foot expansion would increase the store's footprint to 167,000 square feet, edging out Lowe's in Cotati as the largest big-box store in Sonoma County.

The world's largest retailer has submitted plans to expand its Redwood Drive location by 28 percent, adding the larger grocery section the company says customers have been clamoring for.

"We've been a part of the Rohnert Park community for many years, and we're hearing from them that they want these additional offerings," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Angela Stoner.

The proposal is almost certain to open a new front in the long-running battle that has pitted large corporate retailers against local merchants protecting their turf and activists advocating better wages and benefits.

The plan already is drawing criticism from the local grocery industry and activists who derailed Wal-Mart's plans to build a store in Santa Rosa.

The Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County vowed Thursday to push for Rohnert Park to study economic and social effects of the project, not just environmental ones.

"We're going to to take a very serious look at this," said Marty Bennett, co-chairman of the coalition.

Tom Scott, manager of Oliver's Market, expressed concern about the wages and health benefits Wal-Mart pays workers - issues that likely will be raised by critics as the project makes its way through the city approval process.

"Wal-Mart is able to cut costs out of the system, but there is a price paid for that," Scott said. "It doesn't show up on the receipt, but it shows up in the community."

Wal-Mart already sells a limited selection of groceries at its Rohnert Park store. The new grocery would be at the southern end of the expanded store and would include a bakery, produce and deli, Stoner said. An expansion of the garden center to the north and new bathrooms also are planned.

The expansion would bring to the store all of the features of a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter, although its name won't be changed, Stoner said.

Wal-Mart shopper Betty Beckman, a retired Rohnert Park resident who lives on a fixed income, said she would welcome the expansion. Because the store carries only a small selection of groceries, she said she must make additional trips to area supermarkets to complete her shopping.

"With the economy the way it is, we need to do everything we can do to keep our shopping dollars down," Beckman said, rolling her cart past loaves of bread selling for $1.26 and Fetzer wine for $5.97 a bottle.

Wal-Mart's application is still in its early stages.

Last week, the City Council hired consulting firm Michael Brandman Associates to create an environmental impact report for the project. Wal-Mart will pay $343,000 for the study and city administrative costs.

The city Planning Commission will hold a meeting in late May or June to give the public the opportunity to express what it wants to see studied by the environmental report, said Maureen Rich, senior senior city planner.

Wal-Mart began the application process in January, nearly four months after its plans for a store in Santa Rosa bogged down in court.

In September, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Robert Boyd ruled that the environmental study for a proposed, 106,000-square-foot store in the Roseland neighborhood was flawed. Wal-Mart officially abandoned its four-year effort in February.

Stoner said the death of the Santa Rosa project had no effect on Wal-Mart's decision to expand the Rohnert Park store.

"Those projects are completely unrelated," she said.

The heart of the Rohnert Park project involves pushing the building's southern wall 95 feet toward the nearby Home Depot. The expansion would cover what is now a row of parking and would eat into a grass buffer between the buildings.

The bulk of the increased space, about 32,000 square feet, will be devoted to the grocery area. That's nearly the size of a nearby Pacific Market in Rohnert Park, but smaller than the typical Safeway or Albertson's supermarkets, which average 50,000 to 60,000 square feet.

Smaller expansions would be made in the front of the store to add space for bathrooms and to the north of the store by renovating the garden area.

Wal-Mart plans to take advantage of the expansion to modernize the look of the building, with new signs bearing its redesigned logo and more attractive exterior features, such as archways to eliminate "long continuous blank walls," according to the application.

The store, Sonoma County's first Wal-Mart, opened in 1992. A second Wal-Mart opened in Windsor in 2000.

The expansion plans call for "many green and sustainable features" used in new Wal-Marts around the nation.

"This is something that is a priority for us all across the country," Stoner said.

Skylights in the expanded area will allow for "daylight harvesting" that will reduce lighting use by 75 percent. Wal-Mart expects to install one skylight per every 1,000 square feet of new space. Dimmable florescent lights will allow the store to dim the lights by 25 percent in the evening.

Other proposed energy-saving features may include a white roof that reflects heat, reducing cooling costs by an estimated 8 percent and low-flow automatic sinks and toilets.

Plans are not finalized, and significant changes could occur through the permit process. Wal-Mart representatives sat down late last year with Rohnert Park officials to discuss the project and seemed committed to designing a "green" addition, said Peter Bruck, the city's building official.

"They have been very forthcoming and very reasonable," Bruck said.

The company is required to incorporate sustainable building practices on such a project. Under the city's 2007 green building ordinance, such a significant expansion requires the builder to adhere to the latest green standards, Bruck said.

The project calls for four signs on the exterior of the building, the largest being a 9-foot-high, 35-foot long illuminated sign over the main entrance. It would replace the existing sign with the company's new logo, "Wal-mart" in blue letters followed by a yellow flower.

The company plans to eliminate 33 of the 813 parking spaces. The hours of the store, now 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., would be expanded to 24 hours.

The number of employees is expected to jump from 300 to 450, with 70 percent working full time and the rest part time.

Bennett of the Living Wage Coalition doubted that percentage of employees will be full time. He said Wal-Mart is known for having a high percentage of part-time workers to avoid paying health benefits. The result is that taxpayers bear additional costs for medical services to uninsured Wal-Mart employees and their families, he said.

Wal-Mart denies this, saying most of its 1.4 million U.S. employees work at least 34 hours a week. It also says 92.7 percent of its employees report having some form of health insurance through Wal-Mart or another source.

Even so, the company is running into opposition across California for its push to the grocery business.

Ken Silveria, owner of Pacific Market, said independent grocers have reason to be fearful. He recently visited a Wal-Mart grocery in Oakland on a Sunday night and the place was packed.

"It's absolutely unbelievable the amount of volume they generate," Silveria said.

Scott of Oliver's said whatever sales the expanded store generates will be sucked out of competitors' pockets. Wal-Mart's claim that it's just acting to help its customers is "fantasy," he said.

"I think Wal-Mart takes care of Wal-Mart," Scott said.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com.

Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County Newsletter - Winter 2008

Wal-Mart Stalls in Santa Rosa
by Scott Stegeman

A high point for economically and environmentally sustainable planning in Sonoma County was the Superior Court ruling overturning a proposed new Wal-Mart Store in Santa Rosa. Wal-Mart's applied in 2004 to demolish two empty buildings in an existing shopping center in southwest Santa Rosa, and replace them with a new Wal-Mart store.

Early local opposition appeared within weeks and went into high gear with the release of an environmental impact report (EIR) in late 2005. Much of the EIR took a "don't worry, be happy" approach offering up mitigations for noise and traffic impacts where feasible, and justifying unmitigated impacts by pointing to the new jobs to be created, the new vibrancy to the shopping center, and of course the new revenue stream to the City.

A coalition of labor, environmental, and community based organizations formed (many of these organizations later joined the Accountable Development Coalition) and testified to the Santa Rosa planning commission in February 2005 about the economic and environmental costs of Wal-Mart. The flash points ranged from the very broad to the extremely localized. A number of social equity and labor groups attacked the very basis of giving Wal-Mart a foothold, in terms of predatory business practices, anti-unionism and hiring practices, off-shore manufacturing and the danger of creating civic dependency upon a globally dominant corporation.

Local residents and businesses in the southwest of Santa Rosa objected to significant traffic and parking problems that would compromise the shopping center and the neighborhood. Residents pointed out that approving the Wal-Mart at that location would undercut the effort to redevelop an abandoned shopping center a few blocks away. Merchants that would be neighbors in the same center complained that Wal-Mart planned to meet its parking demands by laying claim to parking spaces directly in front of existing small merchants, displacing their customers and employees.

But the strangest and ultimately most damaging issue was that Wal-Mart and its consultants could never get on the same page as to what the project really was. Different sections of the Draft EIR showed conflicting building sizes, conflicting numbers of parking spaces, conflicting internal circulation plans and so on. Maps provided by the property manager for the shopping center did not match Wal-Marts. Wal-Mart's response to the barrage of specific and substantive objections was to bus in employees and customers to a city council meeting to praise job creation and cheap goods. The project was approved by split decisions by both the Planning Commission and City Council.

To add more controversy, the city delayed seating newly elected Council members in December of 2006 so that the lame duck (and more favorable) City Council could take the vote. As a final accent the City later became confused and could not clearly show which version of the project had been approved.

A lawsuit was immediately filed charging violations of local planning/zoning regulations and an inadequate and inconsistent EIR. And after months of legal back and forth, Superior County Judge Boyd cut through thousands of pages to focus on some essential truths when he rule in mid 2008 that the EIR was so fundamentally flawed as to be almost useless, and overturned the City approval of Wal-Mart. And in his ruling Judge Boyd noted that the most fundamental flaw was the inability to explaining the amount of parking vehicles, or buildings that would exist if the Wal-Mart were approved. Since the EIR was inconsistent on the most b basic description of the project and the project setting, it made it impossible to really understand any of the impacts that might result.

Six months later the November 2008 City Council election produced a new Council with five of the sever Council member opposed to Wal-Mart and supportive of a living wage ordinance for the city --leaving Wal-Mart little hope of a successful repeat approval.

The community now waits to see if Wal-Mart will appeal to the Appellate Court.

Scott Stegeman is a land-use and planning consultant who has worked with community coalitions on numerous big box and large commercial development projects in the North Bay and elsewhere in California.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Petaluma Sheraton Story
Petaluma Argus Courier
May 9, 2007

The Sheraton Petaluma Hotel recently hosted a much-acclaimed Artisan Cheese Festival attracting more than a thousand visitors. The Sheraton story is an important chapter in the emergence of a new labor movement in California, which is seeking to organize low-wage and immigrant workers and to create partnerships for career mobility in traditionally low-wage industries.

A recent report," The Limits of Prosperity," by New Economy, Working Solutions (NEWS) analyzed the dramatic increase of income inequality in the North Bay over the last two decades and the emergence of an 'hourglass economy,' with job growth concentrated at the top and bottom of the labor market while the middle is contracting--particularly as the crash of the telecommunications industry led to the loss of 5000 tech jobs between 2001-2004 as firms moved manufacturing abroad.

The NEWS report emphasized that more than 30 percent of the workers in the North Bay do not earn an hourly 'living wage' sufficient for two parents working full-time to support a two-child family. A living wage in 2003 was $13.25 an hour for Sonoma and $14.50 an hour for Napa, after adjusting for the cost of living in each county. Latino workers who are clustered in agriculture and the low wage service sector experience higher rates of working poverty: in both counties nearly 45% do not earn a living wage. Most alarmingly, the report indicates that 62% of the jobs created in the North Bay between 2001-2008 will pay an entry wage of less than $12.00 an hour.

As a consequence of this dramatic polarization of wealth and incomes, business, labor, and local government are developing new models to upgrade traditional low wage work, particularly service sector jobs that can't move to nations with lower labor costs.

'Responsible' or 'accountable' development is one of the most promising policy initiatives gaining momentum in California. In 2001 state and local government provided $11 billion in tax abatements, redevelopment assistance, and infrastructure subsidies to private business. Usually firms that receive public funding are not held responsible for the quality of jobs including wage rates and benefits, or the opportunities for career mobility.

Over the last decade, in response to advocacy and organizing by labor, faith, and community organizations, many California cities and counties have mandated that new development projects receiving public funding create good jobs and provide other 'community benefits' such as affordable housing, parks, and child care services.

The Sheraton Petaluma is a local example of such responsible development. In 2000, the Living Wage Coalition and the North Bay Labor Council successfully lobbied the Petaluma City Council to mandate labor standards for the hotel. In return for $2.75 million in redevelopment loans and tax breaks, the owner-developer of the Sheraton agreed to pay a living wage to the workers at the hotel, to abide by federal and state labor law and to remain neutral if hotel employees sought an election for union representation.

In 2005 the workers at the Sheraton voted for representation by UNITEHERE Local 2850. Last fall the union and management signed a three-year contract. All non-tipped employees such as housekeepers, janitors, and dishwashers will receive total wage increases of $1.30 an hour over three years. Employees who work as few as 16 shifts per month will now qualify for medical benefits, paid time off, and retirement benefits.

Employee co-payments for medical were cut significantly, and each year will decline further. Housekeepers, who experience high rates of work related injuries, also received a workload reduction. The hourly wages at the Sheraton are substantially better than the industry norm, and at nonunion hotels company-provided medical benefits, particularly for part-time workers, are out of reach.

In San Francisco, 11 Class A hotels, UNITEHERE Local 2, and the City College of San Francisco established the San Francisco Partnerships Project in 1994 that today provides classes to 5000 hotel workers, from ESL and basic skills to culinary arts and hospitality management. Funded by business and labor contributions, this program boosts productivity and creates career ladders that enable dishwashers to become chefs, housekeepers to become banquet waiters, and busboys to become wine stewards. NEWS and the Living Wage Coalition are working with Sheraton management, the Petaluma Adult School, and Santa Rosa Junior College to establish a similar workforce training program.

Since the first contract was signed many businesses, nonprofits, and unions have moved their conferences, annual dinners, and trainings to the Sheraton. Everyone concerned about the growing economic divide in the region should support this hotel!

Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College and serves as Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County (Note: the above is an unedited version of the Guest Commentary printed by the Argus).


Patronize the Sheraton!!

The Living Wage Coalition urges all members, supporters and and affiliatedorganizations to patronize the Sheraton!! This is the only union hotel inthe North Bay and an excellent facility for conferences, meetings, andfamily events!! Contact the Director of Sales and Marketing Matt Andress at:

707-283-2931
matthew.andress@sheratonpetaluma.com
745 Baywood Drive Petaluma
http://www.sheraton.com/petaluma

Don't miss the terrific  "Early Bird Special" between 4-6 pm Sunday-Thursday, $15 per person at their award winning Tolay restaurant featuring local and regional cuisine!!

________________________________________________________________________________


Petaluma Sheraton Workers Sign First Contract!!
Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County Newsletter - Winter 2006
by Eileen Morris

Seven years after they began their struggle, workers at the Petaluma Sheraton negotiated a three-year union contract this September.

The Sheraton is the first union hotel in the North Bay, and the contract,which covers 95 employees, includes life-changing provisions for health coverage, retirement accounts, vacations, increased earnings, job security,better working conditions, and recognition of seniority-including provisions that will allow workers tangled in Immigration andNaturalization red tape to return to their jobs when issues are resolved,and provisions to allow part time workers to qualify for health coverage and other benefits.

The union movement for workers at the Sheraton began even before the hotel had begun construction. The hotel's developers approached the city of Petaluma for financial assistance (a loan of up to $2.75 million) to help them meet construction and on-going operating expenses. Members of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition began to educate the Petaluma City Council and the Petaluma community about some of the unintended consequences implicit in the proposed deal. Yes, a Sheraton would bring increased tax dollars to the city's General Fund and increased patronage of many Petaluma businesses, but unless workers were paid well and had benefits, the public sector would end up subsidizing Sheraton operations:Sheraton workers would find it necessary to access a variety of assistance programs, including the Healthy Families Program, affordable housing programs, food stamps and other programs for the poor.

After much negotiation and concerted lobbying by the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition and a variety of local labor and religious leaders, the Petaluma Council agreed to make the loan, but as one of its conditions, the city required hotel management to remain neutral if employees organized.Nevertheless, the road to union representation was bumpy. An arbitrator ordered a new election, judging that management had interfered in the first election in 2004. The hotel changed hands and came under the management of Rim Hospitality, which was at first reluctant to abide by the city-imposed union-neutrality provision, but did in the end comply.

Both management and union negotiators say they are happy with the working relationship they forged in the 10-month negotiation period.

While Sheraton employees will earn significantly more than most of their nonunion counterparts ($11.50 per hour for Sheraton housekeepers versus the county industry average wage of $9.67, for example), they will still be challenged by Sonoma County's high cost of living. Cooks, for example, can expect to earn $13.30 by the end of the 3-year contract. That's a wage that will provide sufficiently for a single person but will prove inadequate for a single parent with one child in this county, according to Wider Opportunities for Women, a research and advocacy organization dedicated to empowering poor people and improving their standard of living. However,unlike may of their non-unionized counterparts, Sheraton employees will have health insurance, and will therefore not have to deal with catastrophic emergency health care costs.

In addition to better pay, the Sheraton employees will have better job protection and better working conditions. Most significantly, the housekeeping department, when making cleaning assignments, will recognize the great difference in work load between rooms where guests have checked out and rooms where guests are staying over and between large suites and regular rooms.

Seniority will figure mightily in scheduling. Employees now have a grievance policy and protections from unfair disciplinary actions and termination.

In recognition of how important immigrant labor is to the hospitality industry and how snarled the immigration process can be, hotel management agreed to allow employees who have to stop work because of immigration issues to return once those issues are resolved. Similarly, the union is proud of the concessions it won for part-time employees who account for a large number of the hotel employees.

Management, local educators, and the Living Wage Coalition are also exploring ways to create employment ladders within the hotel by providing ESL and adult education classes to the workers.

Eileen Morris is a member of the Living Wage Coalition


 

 ________________________________________________________________________

Union Contract Negotiations to Begin at the Petaluma Sheraton
by Eileen Morris
North Bay Progressive
January 2006

After a long and hard-fought battle, workers at the Petaluma Sheraton voted to join the UNITEHERE Local 2850 (a merger of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union) last month-a first for the Sonoma County hotel industry. But will the 95 employees get a contract? Nationally, some 30 percent of successful union elections never result in a contract because negotiations break down.

Those in the know say that the Sheraton employees have a greater chance than most.

"You aren't alone in this," Stephanie Ruby, Organizing Director for HERE, told workers as they sat down Dec. 15 for their first discussion of contract negotiations. "You've got yourselves-the strong bonds and the great relationships you developed in this campaign. You've got the strength of this great union structure. And you've got the support of the community. That's a lot of people who have your back."

Community support for a union work force at the Sheraton first took shape in late 1999 when the hotel's developers approached the city of Petaluma for financial assistance to help them meet construction and on-going operating expenses. Petaluma's City Council was interested in working with the hotel because it looked like the Sheraton would bring much needed revenue to city coffers in the form of increased property taxes and bed taxes. Additionally, local businesses would benefit from the hotel's conference facilities and the money that guests would spend at local businesses during their stays.

It was Marty Bennett, Co-Chair of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition and Executive Director of the North Bay think tank New Economy Working Solutions who first pointed out to the Council that a Sheraton could also result in additional and unintended public sector subsidies to the hotel owners. He described the low wages workers could expect to receive and those wages' inevitable corollary in expensive Sonoma County: Sheraton workers would have to access a variety of assistance programs-a truth since born out. In the three years' they've been working without a union contract, many Sheraton employees have been forced to use the Healthy Families Program, affordable housing programs, food stamps and other programs for the poor said Ruby. "This hotel's on welfare. We want to stop that. And that's not outrageous," Ruby told workers.

Numerous voices from labor and the religious community-most notably, parishioners from St. Vincent's Catholic Church in Petaluma-joined the Living Wage Coalition's initial call for accountable development.

The council in 2000 agreed that it was unfair to support low-wage employment with public funds. They agreed (6-1) to loan the hotel up to $2.75 million, but a condition of the loan was that union labor would play an important role in the hotel's construction, and that the hotel management would remain neutral in any election among hotel employees.  Some $750,000 of the loan paid for parking lot construction. The rest of the money was to be borrowed monthly over a number of years, to offset operating expenses.

Workers' advocates in the community and in city government remained firm supportive  throughout the last three years. When the hotel changed hands and management in 2003, continuation of the financial agreement with the city, loan repayment and labor neutrality seemed in peril, with the new owners declaring they didn't have to abide by provisions worked out by the previous owners. Dropping the labor neutrality provision might make eventual loan repayments more likely, the new owners suggested to the city, and, in that case, hotel owners would be happy to keep borrowing money every month. But after public outcry and negotiations with the city, new management agreed to both abide by the labor neutrality provision and shoulder the financial agreement.

However, in 2004, an arbitrator determined that the hotel had not remained neutral in an election campaign and ordered a new election. (Workers in the first election voted for the union, but many ballots were challenged, prompting the arbitrator to call for the new election).

By all accounts management did remain neutral for the current election. "This time around the process was as good as it could have been," said Ruby.

Petaluma City Council member Mike Healy, the only remaining Council member who voted for the Sheraton deal, concurs:  "This was about as positive as we could have hoped for," he said about the election this week. "It could very well set a precedent for the rest of the county. I've told the union folks this is their opportunity to show that a union can be a benefit to management. If they do that, others in the future might not be so resistant."

Bennett agrees. "Our preferred alternative is to make this a win-win situation for everyone. Arriving at a contract and having a union work force is going to make the Sheraton a very attractive venue for large labor and progressive organizations. We really want to make that happen." At the same time, he said, "Our base is stronger than ever now, and our infrastructure is much more developed. We are willing to bring moral suasion to bear to make sure the hotel does the right thing and negotiates a fair contract."

Union structure and worker strength. Workers meeting with Ruby asked her what protections the union could extend to them if management attempted to punish them for their stand.

"What's different in your situation today is this," she said. "Before the election, you could have been fired at any time. Now, they can still fire you, but if they violate your rights, it will be exposed." One of those rights is to be free from discrimination no matter what your stand on the union had been, Ruby said.

A cook and a restaurant hostess both mentioned that their supervisors had been miffed about the election. "It's like they're trying to guilt us out," the hostess said.

"Management's job is to make you nervous, to make you afraid," said Ruby. "But with this election, you've moved beyond a patriarchal relationship. You're now equals, and we're going to negotiate from a position of strength."

Throughout the last six weeks of the election campaign, HERE flooded the area with unionized workers from hotels all over the state to inform Sheraton workers of the benefits of union contracts. One such worker, Anna Gutierrez, is a housekeeper at the Holiday Inn in Emeryville-a hotel which is managed by the same group that manages the Petaluma Sheraton.

"There were a lot of fears [among the Sheraton employees]," Gutierrez said, "but they were very excited to hear about my contract, and they are very excited to make their own."

Health care and higher wages are top priorities among Sheraton workers, but there was also a call for English as a Second Language course. Interestingly, the Sheraton's first owners had been eager to create partnerships with the junior college and the Petaluma Adult School to offer basic skills, ESL and hospitality industry training. "Those partnerships could come back quickly," said Bennett. "There are already models in place that could enable workers to go from the back of the house to the front. That's a huge benefit to everyone."

The union provides a structure that individual workers have to inhabit, Ruby said. "You've taken the first step. Now, the second step is to stay involved. This contract has to be about things you want for yourselves and your co-workers. That's going to give you the strength to stand up not just for yourself, but for them."

Ruby expects negotiations with hotel management to begin in mid-January.

Eileen Morris is a member of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition. ________________________________________________________________________________

Statement on Wal-Mart DEIR by Ben Boyce, Coordinator, Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County to Santa Rosa Planning Commission Feb 9, 2006

The entrance of Wal-Mart in Santa Rosa is touted as a cure for blight in the Southwest Area and a boon to the city in the form of creation of new jobs. A substantial body of research done by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education demonstrates that the entrance of a Wal-Mart in an existing market merely displaces other retail jobs, through the closure of competing stores. The net effect is to replace other retail jobs with lower quality Wal-Mart jobs that pay, on average, 30% less. In addition to the substantial Wal-Mart wage penalty, Wal-Mart employees are 23% less likely to have job-based health insurance. When the planning commission reviews the suitability of Wal-Mart's application, the impact of these wage policies on the need for affordable housing and the burden on public health services must be taken into account.

The economic impact report in appendix A of the DEIR states that average wage of Wal-Mart employees in the Bay Area in 2004 was $11.08 per hour. This is a misleading figure, most likely arrived at by including managerial salaries into the aggregate wage totals. A more accurate figure would be the average wage of non-managerial workers, which is calculated at $10.38/hr, with more than 50% of employees earning under $9.50/hr, based on inflation-adjusted 2001 wage numbers, which is the only year for which public information was available, due to a national class-action sex discrimination lawsuit. Wal-Mart's claim that their wages are "almost identical" to unionized workers is contradicted by the evidence. Bay Area union retail workers (non-managerial) have an average wage of $15.31/hr as opposed to Wal-Mart's average stated wage of $11.08/hr. This represents a 28% drop from the union wage.

These are not living wage jobs that will sustain the economic health of the community, which is a stated goal of the Southwest Area Plan. According to the research done for the Living Wage Coalition by the UC Berkeley Institute for Labor and Employment, the conservative living wage figure for Sonoma County in 2006 is $13.25/hr. The proposed Wal-Mart jobs fall well short of that basic baseline.

The Sedway Group, who prepared the economic impact report, attempt to dismiss the well-publicized report by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research which demonstrated that Wal-Mart cost the taxpayers of California $86 million in one year for public healthcare costs alone. The Sedway Group makes the claim that "only" 11% of Wal-Mart employees will be eligible for public assistance programs, such as Medi-Cal, Section 8 housing, SonomaWorks, Food Stamps, and subsidized school lunches. This assertion is contradicted by Wal-Mart's own internal report, which was released to the press. This memo states that 46% of Wal-Mart associates children are either uninsured or on Medi-Cal or enrolled in subsidized Children's Health Insurance Plan. The same leaked memo states that 24% of Wal-Mart associates nationally are on Medicaid or uninsured. The national cost to taxpayers is $456,000,000 annually, and rising. This shows that Wal-Mart is a net deficit for the communities it occupies.

Contrary to some rosy reports in the regional paper, Wal-Mart is not being welcomed to Santa Rosa, and stiff opposition to the predatory business model of this company is rising up all across the country. The well-documented role that Wal-Mart plays as a relentless engine driving down living standards in the U.S., as it shifts its labor costs on to the public sector, should give the planning commission pause before routinely approving this application.

________________________________________________________________________________

Unions drum up support in SR Labor activists at town hall meeting accuse local businesses of trampling on workers' rights

By Jeremy Hay, The Press Democrat
Santa Rosa Press Democrat June 19, 2005

Some of Sonoma County's biggest businesses are trampling on their employees in a way that reflects a nationwide political agenda to place corporate rights over workers' rights, labor activists, workers and politicians said Saturday.

"A credo is now being preached to let capitalism be completely unfettered," said Michael Allen, former general manager of the county's biggest union, Service Employees International Union 707.

"As citizens we cannot let that happen," said Allen, now president of the North Bay Labor Council. He called for a "Sonoma County rapid response network" to engage in demonstrations and political action in support of workers.

E&J Gallo Winery, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital and Empire Waste Management were among businesses that workers and labor organizers cited as workplaces where employees who want to start or strengthen unions have been the target of "union-busting" campaigns and intimidation.

Ensign Group, a Southern California company that owns four skilled nursing homes in Sonoma County, was also singled out for similar complaints.

Representatives of each company have denied the charges.

At Gallo, Empire Waste and Ensign - where management and employee relations have deteriorated the most markedly amid contract negotiations that have stalled for more than two years - company officials say the unions have not bargained in good faith.

This week, on the same day the United Farm Workers union called for a boycott of Gallo wines, state labor regulators filed a complaint saying the union has refused to cooperate in negotiations.

About 100 people attended Saturday's town hall meeting, "Workers' Rights are Human Rights," at Finley Community Center.

The event had the temper of a high-season political rally, with denunciations of President Bush and Gov. Schwarzenegger and calls to oppose two ballot measures in the state's November special election, including one that would bar public employee labor unions from making political contributions unless their members provide written consent.

"I haven't seen an initiative requiring corporations to get permission from their shareholders before making contributions," said Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who said the policies of Bush and Schwarzenegger have weakened workers' rights and labor protections, said: "America is strong because of its middle class. We can't have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement."

The six-term representative, who received a standing ovation, is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would it make easier for employees to organize unions and stiffen penalties for labor law violations.

Priscilla Yaeger, a patient financial counselor at Memorial Hospital, where the SEIU is campaigning to begin representing technicians and clerical workers, said supervisors told her not to talk about union activities and made her attend mandatory meetings where unions were portrayed as duplicitous.

Mary Borrelli, spokeswoman for St. Joseph Health System - which includes both Memorial and Petaluma Valley hospitals and is the county's largest health care provider - said such charges were baseless.

"I can tell you that would never happen from any executive at St. Joe's," she said. "It would never happen - I'll stake my job and mortgage on it."

On Saturday, the sympathies at the Finley Center were with people like Maria Echaveste - a daughter of Central Valley farmworkers and former deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.

Labor rights, she said, must be tied to immigration overhauls that give legal status to illegal workers already in the country and that impose sanctions on businesses that hire and mistreat undocumented workers.

"The American dream that allowed me and my family to succeed is evaporating for so many people," she said, "and we cannot let these people, Bush and Arnold, take our country away from us.

________________________________________________________________________________

Workers rights still getting squeezed

By Ben Boyce
June 18, 2005 Santa Rosa Press Democrat Closer to Home/Opinion

Right here in Sonoma County, a silent war is being fought, out of sight of the general public.

Community supporters of labor rights have witnessed heartbreaking real-life dramas in which workers' aspirations for living wages, decent benefits and respect at work have been smashed by immoral tactics whose perpetrators go largely unpunished:

Members of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthworkers West at Sonoma Healthcare Center have been attempting to get a contract after a three-year struggle, only to be subjected to a vicious, systematic elimination of the union leadership.

The United Farm Workers has had to launch a national boycott against Gallo after exhausting all other remedies in an unsuccessful two-year campaign to get a new contract for the Sonoma Gallo workers.

The Bush administration's National Labor Relations Board, which is generally hostile to labor rights, was compelled to levy a $100,000 fine against WG Investment Group, owners of the Petaluma Sheraton, organized by Unite Here Local 2850, for blatant violations of the neutrality agreement signed with the city of Petaluma.

The health care workers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital were forced to abort their recent union drive in the face of a sophisticated "astro-turf" strategy, in which the hospital's anti-union consultants sponsored employee front groups claiming to represent the rank-and-file.

Empire Waste Management refuses to bargain in good faith with the sanitation workers represented by Operating Engineers Local 3, failing to conclude a first contract after over a year of delay tactics - even after being directed by the Petaluma City Council to settle.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the landmark legislation that guarantees the right of American workers to join a union, free of interference. There is little to celebrate, however, because this basic right has been essentially stripped from the American populace through a sustained attack by the corporate sector over the last 25 years.

The right of workers to freedom of association, the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, is a civil right that is recognized internationally. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: "Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

When workers attempt to organize a union in America, they routinely run into a buzz saw of threats, intimidation and coercive tactics orchestrated by highly paid union-busting consultants. This is a pernicious, billion-dollar a year industry whose sole purpose is to deny a fundamental human right.

Human Rights Watch, an internationally respected human rights organization, released a major report that condemned the current state of workers' rights in the U.S.: "Loophole-ridden laws, paralyzing delays, and feeble enforcement have led to a culture of impunity in many areas of U.S. labor law and practice. Legal obstacles tilt the playing field so steeply against workers' freedom of association that the United States is in violation of international human rights standards for workers."

Labor law is broken, and as a result every year the percentage of Americans who enjoy union benefits and protections decreases.

To address this systemic social injustice, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been introduced in Congress, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Representative George Miller, D-Martinez. The EFCA will restore the original intent of the NLRA by clearing away the thicket of legal impediments to union recognition and providing meaningful penalties for violations of labor law.

The bill has three primary components: (1) democratic majority sign-up (also known as card-check), which requires the employer to recognize and bargain with the union when a majority of employees sign a union authorization; (2) first contract mediation and arbitration, which permits either party to request mediation if agreement has not been reached in 90 days; (3) stronger penalties for labor law violations, including swift relief for unlawful firings, treble back pay and civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. The measure will be discussed at a forum today. See box for details.

Restoring the civil rights of workers to organize will lead to higher living standards, a healthier economy and sustain a critical political counterweight to unchecked corporate power.

______________________________________________________________________________

Empire Waste treating people like garbage?

By Ellen Bicheler
North Bay Progressive June 2005

On May 16, the Petaluma City Council voted 5-1 with Councilmember, Karen Nau dissenting to extend their garbage contract another six months with Empire Waste Management. City Manager, Mike Bierman advised the council to go with the extension to allow enough time to work out franchise agreements with the city and for Empire Waste Management and Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 to "resolve their differences."

At stake is a $50.5 million dollar ten-year garbage contract.

Two weeks earlier the council unanimously voted on an ultimatum to Empire Waste Management to work out their labor disputes with the union or lose the contract. Empire Waste Management and the union have been working on their contract for over two years.

Greg Gunheim, District Representative of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 said, "The council gave clear direction on May 2. Empire Waste didn't listen. They didn't even meet with us until May 13 they're a bad corporate citizen they're union busting they don't want the workers to have a voice." Although the council approved the extension, Mayor Dave Glass and councilmembers Pam Torliatt and Keith Canevaro suggested looking at other haulers like Green Waste while trying to negotiate the Empire Waste contract.

Several council members expressed concern about allegations of mistreatment and racial discrimination. "This is not about union or non-unions. It's about the way the company treats their employees," said Torliatt. Councilmember Mike Healy said, "Allegations of racial discrimination need to be looked into with Empire Waste Management."

Those allegations were made by William E. Scott, Jr., a former Waste Management labor relations expert who was sent out from the Houston headquarters two years ago to help fight the unionization vote. Scott was fired after the union won. In a phone interview with NBP, Scott said, "Corporate has a good diversity program, however Rob Zakoor (District Manager) is a racist." Scott reported that when Zakoor laid off a Hispanic supervisor with over thirty two years of seniority, he wanted to give him only three months of severance pay. When Scott advised giving him a year of severance pay, Zakoor told Scott, 'Screw him. I don't like wetbacks anyway.' Rob Zacoor introduced me to the word wetback," said Scott, "and then twisted my use of the word to get me fired."

Heather Browne, spokesperson for Empire Waste said, "This statement purportedly comes from a disgruntled former employee, who was himself terminated from Waste Management, in part for his use of racial epithets in describing Hispanic employees His assertions are malicious and without foundation or merit." Alicia Sanchez, one of many union supporters who filled the Petaluma City Council Chambers, said, "The workers took a great deal of abuse and discrimination before they decided to unionize. They realized that by coming together they could have some say with their bosses the union contract gives them security."

Not everyone at the company agrees. A contingent of anti-union proponents from Empire Waste voiced their objections to the union and spoke highly of Empire Waste Management. Employee Ricardo Elias said, "Sixty percent of the company has signed a petition saying they don't want a union." Elias said there's been vandalism he attributes to union members, and non-union supporters have been labeled, 'company pansies.'

Santa Rosa Attorney, Michael Fiumara is convinced of that there has been discrimination against union members. "From interviewing at least twelve employees," said Fiumara, "I would opine that there is clear and convincing evidence that these employees interviewed have been impermissibly terminated for their union activities."

Fiumara said he "has cases where several union organizers were assigned unfamiliar and difficult routes with the aim of punishing them. It took so much longer to complete the route and to return to the yard to dump the load that the employee exceeded his hours of service and forced the employee to violate the DOT regulations. This self fulfilling prophesy and set-up for failure discourages union organizing especially if the employees are fired for doing what the company tells them to do."

According to Gunheim, two points of conflict remain in dispute, the cost-of-living raises and management of a 401K plan (currently only employees pay into it).

Gunheim urges the public to continue to voice their support of the workers and the union to both Empire Waste and the Petaluma City Council. "I pray that the contract will be resolved."

________________________________________________________________________________

Sonoma Nursing Home Workers Under Attack

North Bay Progressive May 2005
By Ben Boyce, Living Wage Coalition Coordinator

The lobby outside the Department of Health Services (DHS) office in Santa Rosa was packed to capacity with workers from the Sonoma Healthcare Center (SHC), their children, local clergy, social justice advocates, union activists, and the press. This action, on April 14th, was convened by the bargaining committee for the workers at SHC, who are represented by SEIU UHW. The large delegation was there to deliver a letter to the DHS demanding that the state agency drop pending investigations against the union activists at SHC. Last month, six employees at SHC received notices from the DHS that they were under investigation for complaints that had been filed against them by an unnamed source.

The staff at the DHS office was a bit nervous about this unusual gathering at the normally quiet state government office, but the office manager accepted the letter, and promised to forward the request to the head office in Sacramento. The workers were adamant that the DHS investigations are part of an ongoing anti-union campaign by the owners of the SHC, Ensign Corporation, based in Mission Viejo. Eulalia Gonzalez, a nursing assistant at SHC, stated that "When all of us who are being investigated also happen to be union activists, I think it's pretty obvious that something strange is going on". Three of the six union members under investigation are on the five-member bargaining committee, which is attempting to reach their first contract with SHC, following a long and bitterly contested union election campaign.

The union campaign began almost three years ago, when a group of nursing home workers at the SHC approached SEIU 250 (now SEIU UHW) requesting union representation. Ensign reacted vehemently to the prospect of a union at one of their facilities, which are all non-union, and hired a law firm, the Newport Beach based Labor Relations Services, which specializes in neutralizing union drives for their clients. Ensign is a large corporation which owns 25 other facilities across the western states.

The firm received 2.6 million dollars in state funding in 2000 to operate Sonoma Healthcare Center. The workers are mainly Latino nursing aides, food preparers, and janitors. The average hourly rate for the nursing aides is $9.75. Other full-time workers make as little as $13,000 a year and must work two jobs. All these workers lack affordable medical benefits and face heavy workloads due to cuts in staffing levels, which union officials describe as a key feature of Ensign's business plan.

In an attempt to thwart unionization, consultants from this company held mandatory anti-union meetings with the workers up to three times a day. Local clergy and city council members who supported the workers were refused permission to attend the meetings. Even in the face of this hostile work environment, the workers still voted 2-1 for union representation. The company then filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The board rejected all of these unfair labor practices charges and ordered immediate recognition of the union. Ensign again appealed the NLRB decision, and the final decision from the NLRB was not rendered until last fall, more than two years after the initial vote.

In the interim, according to members of a community support group affiliated with St. Leo's Peace and Social Justice Committee, several of the key leaders of the union drive at SHC were fired, or quit under pressure, after trumped up personnel complaints were issued against them. Even after this initial loss of some of the key union leaders, a determined group of Latino employees have carried on with the campaign, hoping to win a first contract and improve their wages, benefits, and conditions of work. When the DHS charges against the union activists surfaced, the union members saw them as part of Ensign's attempt to crush the union before a first contract is signed. SHC worker Alejandra Recendiz stated, "Ensign is using the state to get back at the workers". The attorney for Ensign, Greg Stapely, denies that the corporation had any part in registering the DHS complaints. SEIU UHW organizer Nell Hirschman-Levy counters that, "Ensign is simply not credible here. According to a DHS investigator, the reports were made by a SHC administrator.

Every indication is that Ensign is stalling at the bargaining table, with the intention to try to de-cert the union in August, one year after the worker's union was initially certified." On Thursday, April 21st, a delegation of community members, workers, and union organizers will present a letter to the managers of the Ensign facility in Sonoma to demand that they withdraw the DHS complaints.

________________________________________________________________________________

Petaluma Issues Ultimatum To Garbage Hauler, Union

By Jose L. Sanchez
Santa Rosa Press Democrat May 3, 2005

Get it done or else.

The Petaluma City Council told its garbage hauler and a union Monday to come to terms with each other on a contract or face the loss of a 10-year franchise agreement worth $50.5 million.

The council unanimously issued an ultimatum to Empire Waste Management and Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, which have been unable to reach a contract despite 18 months of talks.

If the two sides have not signed an agreement by 9 a.m. May 16, the City Council will abandon its attempt to negotiate a franchise deal with Empire Waste and will begin to discuss picking a replacement that evening.

Councilman Mike Healy, who until recently has been Empire Waste's chief proponent, said the company's treatment of pro-union employees and its dealings with the Operating Engineers strongly suggest its aim is to break the union.

"There's a pattern here that's consistent with the company doing everything to get rid of the union," he said.

Healy and Mayor David Glass said during the meeting that if the city cannot get a deal with Empire Waste, it should consider negotiating a franchise agreement with Green Waste Recovery of San Jose, one of three companies that last year submitted proposals to the city.

Councilwoman Pam Torliatt also said her second choice would be Green Waste.

The failure of the city to conclude a deal with Empire Waste would have significant consequences for Petaluma ratepayers. While Empire Waste would raise rates by 11 percent over three years, Green Waste would raise them by 26 percent over the same period.

Another possibility is that the council could go with San Francisco-based Norcal Waste Systems, which would raise rates by 140 percent.

Four members of the council voted for Norcal earlier this year but Councilman Mike Harris changed his mind after a public backlash.

The council issued its ultimatum after hearing from speakers on both sides of the issue in a chamber overflowing with about 200 people.

"It's never been about the money," said Carlos Martinez, a member of the union's negotiating team.

"We make pretty decent money," he said. "We're not asking for a Cadillac. We are asking for respect."

Other employees spoke for the company and against the union.

"I'm 100 percent Mexican and I've never been discriminated against," said Naomi Rivas.

After 18 months of talks, the issues that remain unresolved are:

* How many members of the bargaining unit will have a 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase granted in April included as part of their base pay.

* Whether the company will pay to administer a 401(k) plan for employees that would not include any company contributions.

* Whether the union can have a bulletin board on company premises without having to submit material to the company first for approval.

Several council members said the issues are insignificant and should be able to be resolved.

"Hopefully, everyone could be locked in a room and get this resolved," Harris said.

Tensions between the company and the union rose last week when the Operating Engineers declared a three-day strike Wednesday. On Thursday, the company struck back, locking out the strikers. Empire Waste brought in employees from its other Bay Area operations to avoid interruptions in service.

Greg Gunheim, a district representative for the union, said the five-day lockout was typical of the company's tactics, which he says have included dealing out harsher discipline to union sympathizers and promoting three attempts to get the union decertified as the employees' representative.

Empire Waste spokesman Jim Landa denied the union's accusations and said the company is negotiating in good faith. He said Empire Waste's drivers are among the top-paid drivers in the area, with salaries exceeding the $70,000 to $75,000 range.

Empire Waste has 130 employees who serve Petaluma, Sebastopol, Healdsburg, Cloverdale and parts of unincorporated Sonoma and Marin counties. Union officials said 42 employees walked off the job Thursday, but company officials put the number at 32.

You can reach Staff Writer Jose Sanchez Jr. at 762-7297

Big-Box Boom: Big-Boxes Are Coming, Bringing Low Wages with Them to Sonoma County
By Bruce Robinson
North Bay Bohemian
March 30, 2005

In the coming months, three huge new retail stores--all major national chains--are preparing to erupt on the Santa Rosa cityscape, their combined 350,000 square feet of relentless consumerism bringing the city millions in future sales-tax revenues--along with hundreds of low-wage jobs.

Santa Rosa is not alone. The boom in retail construction will continue south to Rohnert Park, Cotati and Petaluma, where an additional million-plus square feet of new building is moving through the planning process.

Retail construction in Sonoma County "is poised to expand dramatically," Bill McCubbin, president and CEO of Orion Properties told the annual North Bay Economic Outlook conference in Santa Rosa earlier this year. Several area cities are currently "under-retailed" and looking for additional sales tax revenues, he noted. Based on projects already under consideration or known to be in the planning pipeline, southern Sonoma County can expect another 1.4 million square feet of retail construction in the next few years, with roughly two-thirds of that arising as big boxes.

For Santa Rosa alone, the anticipated arrival of three new big boxes translates into an additional $1 million or more in annual sales-tax revenues, money that has already been factored into the city's long-term budget projections. However, critics charge that this revenue figure is grossly misleading, as it ignores the considerable--and quantifiable--social costs that arrive along with the huge stores.

Leading the procession has been Kohl's, a Wisconsin-based retailer that sought and won approval for a 100,000-square-foot store at the northern gateway to Santa Rosa, on Airway Drive north of Hopper Avenue, though not without some wrangling over the building's design, which has evolved from a one- to a two-story structure. It is now expected to open in time for the Christmas selling season.

Scattered objections to the Santa Rosa Kohl's store were raised as it sailed through the city's review process, but no concerted opposition emerged, perhaps because the area immediately surrounding its site is still largely undeveloped, and traffic concerns there are minimal. That will not be the case for the other two big boxes that have Santa Rosa in their sights.

Give Wal-Mart credit; it had to know it would face a fight over a third huge store in Sonoma County, so it shrewdly set out to remake an existing eyesore--the vacant former HomeBase store that dominates an aging neighborhood mall just south of Highway 12 on Stony Point Road. The world's biggest retailer plans to demolish the old structure and rebuild a slightly reconfigured new 101,000-square-foot store on the same site.

And while Santa Rosa considers Wal-Mart's impact, Ken Jacobs, deputy chair of the Center for Labor Research and Education at UC Berkeley is more blunt. "Wal-Mart does not create new jobs," he says, citing the results of numerous studies. "For everyone hired by Wal-Mart, another job is lost elsewhere in the retail sector."

Those jobs disappear because smaller businesses can't compete with the retail giants, leaving shuttered storefronts in the surrounding neighborhoods. That's a blow to the local economy on several fronts, and it falls hardest when Wal-Mart hits town. "The stores that go out of business tend to pay more than Wal-Mart pays and tend to provide better benefits," Jacobs says, adding that Wal-Mart pays about 31 percent less than other large retailers (those with more than 1,000 employees) and provides 23 percent fewer workers with health insurance coverage.

But the main number the city is looking at is the one that will plug into the municipal budget. City finance director Bill Mushallo anticipated that the proposed Wal-Mart could add $300,000 to $350,000 to the city's coffers each year, noticeably more than the $200,000 to $250,000 Kohl's is expected to generate. But the biggest plum, in terms of sales-tax revenues, is the additional $500,000 per year that could come from the proposed new Home Depot store at Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda.

Having been turned away in its 1998 bid to build a superstore near the county jail (where locally based Yardbirds prevailed atop the still-unstable "moving mountain" instead), Home Depot has come back with plans for a 101,000-square-foot store adjacent to the sprawling "Marketplace" shopping center that supplanted the colorful El Rancho Tropicana complex on Santa Rosa Avenue. Already the subject of some skeptical neighborhood meetings, the Home Depot proposal must also overcome the city's reluctance to sacrifice the high-density housing that is due to go on part of the site under its current general plan.

"We would not entertain a proposal that eliminated the multifamily housing at that location," says Goldberg, "so they would either need to modify their proposal or provide for the housing component at some other location in the city not currently designated for multifamily." Approximately 45 units could be built on the residentially zoned land under its current zoning.

For the neighborhood, traffic concerns top the list, as more than 32,000 cars already cruise past the intersection of Santa Rosa and Yolanda avenues every day. That number will shoot upward when the planned Farmers Lane extension connects Yolanda directly to Bennett and Rincon valleys. Meanwhile, Home Depot officials estimate their planned store will attract some 4,700 customers every day. And neighborhood groups opposed to the new big-box hardware store have an ally with deep pockets in Yardbirds owner John Headley, who poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the unsuccessful fight to keep Lowe's out of Cotati. He now appears prepared to take the battle to both south Santa Rosa and Petaluma.

There is some small irony in the location of this new battleground, separated as it is by a few acres of asphalt from the first big box erected in the area: Costco. The quintessential no-frills shopping outlet also defines boxiness in its physical plant, but they differ from most other big-box stores in some important if largely invisible ways.

"Costco is an example of a big-box outlet that does pay living wages and offers good benefits to their employees," notes Ben Boyce, a leader and spokesman for the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition. But even with that upside, Boyce adds that Costco, like most other big boxes, follows "a business model that typically involves getting tax subsidies or redevelopment monies from the municipalities." Thanks in considerable part to the legacy of Proposition 13, cities are "starved for sales tax revenue," Boyce observes. "They'll prostitute themselves for sales tax revenues even if the total economic impact of the project is negative."

To combat what some see as a shortsighted rush to receive new retailers, some cities have begun to develop a new mechanism called a community impact report. Modeled on the well-established environmental impact reports required for virtually all major construction projects, the CIR encompasses a broader range of indicators, including wage rates, impacts on existing businesses and pressures on social services, such as healthcare, which can be heavily burdened when low-wage workers lack health insurance for themselves or their families.

When massive retailers like Wal-Mart enter a community trumpeting lower prices, "it's clear that they also shift major costs onto the public," says researcher Ken Jacobs. "And to the degree that the people know and understand that, they can develop responses, to have a kind of public policy that says this is the kind of development we want in our communities."

Los Angeles and San Jose are among the California cities already experimenting with some kind of a community impact report. However, Petaluma planning director Mike Moore is not convinced the concept is ready for prime time. "The concerns I'm familiar with in community impact reports--things like the balance between jobs and housing or wage differentials--are issues that local government doesn't necessarily have a lot of control over," Moore offers.

At the same time, he says, "people have seen that the analysis communities typically go through to evaluate major development projects doesn't usually include social or economic impacts. So it wouldn't be surprising to see something like this gain some ground."

But that could come too late. All available land for major retail development in Marin County has already been built out (with one modest exception in Novato), and Wal-Mart is flexing its political muscle in American Canyon southeast of Napa. With huge projects quietly moving forward in Rohnert Park, Petaluma and, the voters have decreed, even on the edge of Cotati, big boxes will be springing up along the freeway like mushrooms after the spring rains.

"I look at them like introducing pike into a trout lake," the Living Wage Coalition's Ben Boyce says grimly. "The big-box model, left unchecked, will eventually consume most retail activity in this country.

"It's already well on the way."

In addition to being a regular 'Bohemian' contributor, Bruce Robinson is news director for KCRB-FM.

Nursing Home Workers Get Union Representation

Sonoma Valley Sun Thursday, September 16, 2004
by Tim Omarzu

About 70 workers at a Sonoma nursing home now have union representation.A federal board certified on Aug. 31 that workers at Sonoma Health Care Center voted in May, 2002 in favor of unionizing by a 38-to-22 margin.

The vote had been contested by Ensign Group, the parent company that owns the Sonoma nursing home along with 43 other nursing homes in four states.The unionization effort became a local cause with clergy members and citizens joining workers' picket lines at the nursing home at 1250 Broadway Street. Poster-board signs in favor of unionization were placed in some Sonomans' front lawns.

Rosa Aparicio, a certified nursing assistant at the nursing home who currently is on maternity leave, said "We've been waiting for a long time for this and we got a good result." Aparicio said she earned $11 an hour at the nursing home. "I hope they give us a good raise," she said.

The Aug. 31 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board means that the employer must begin negotiations for a new contract with the Oakland-based Service Employees International Union, Local 250, a union statement said.

The union will represent nearly 70 full-time and part-time employees including certified nursing assistants, restorative nursing assistants, and staff that helps with activities, food, laundry and maintenance, the statement said.

The election dispute was centered on comments made by labor board agent conducting the election in the presence of a union observer and the employer's observer."During a break in polling, union observer Juan Lopez asked the National Labor Relations board agent conducting the election why 'companies don't like unions'. The board agent replied, 'Companies don't like unions because they cannot fire or hire anyone, and they cannot take benefits from the staff.'"

"Later Lopez mentioned to the board agent that the employer had paid $60,000 to 'the consultant' to which the board agent responded, "Whoa, $60,000." The remarks 'were only heard by two election observers and could not possibly have affected the outcome of election,' said a decision written by two of the four labor board members who voted to certify the election.

A fifth labor board member wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the vote should be tossed because, in his opinion, "the board agent did not observe the quintessential element of strict neutrality." Russ Cobb, who's been administrator of Sonoma Health Care Center for about six months, said that "many of the staff who originally voted, have moved on."

Cobb wouldn't disclose what the affected workers currently earn, but said, "It's very competitive. The market, really, in the last five to seven years (has been) very competitive."

David McCracken, a retired minister from First Congregational Church of Sonoma, was among those who picketed in support of the unionization effort. "I don't think $11 an hour for a nurse's wage is a living wage or generous," said McCracken. He said the labor board's decision is "good news for the workers who've waited a very long time for the response."

Wal-Mart: Race to the Bottom or Corporate Responsibility?
Should the nation's largest employer provide decent wages and good benefits to its workers?

By Marty Bennett
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Monday, September 4, 2004
Closer to Home

It is appropriate this Labor Day weekend that we consider the actual costs and benefits of Wal-Mart, which plans to build a third store in Sonoma County located in Southwest Santa Rosa, and to place in Napa County a super center that combines retail, grocery, and pharmacy.

Wal-Mart claims "Always lower prices" but the slogan really means "Always lower wages and benefits" for Wal-Mart workers and "Always fleece the taxpayers" to subsidize the company's exploitative labor practices. According to "The Hidden Costs of Wal-Mart," a study just released by the UC Center for Labor Research and Education, there are 44,000 Wal-Mart workers in California and 75 percent earn less than $10 an hour, while less than half receive health benefits.

In the Bay Area, the average non-managerial Wal-Mart worker earns $9.40 an hour, significantly below self-sufficiency standards for this high-cost region. According to the California Budget Project, a living wage in the Bay area for a family with two children and two parents working full-time is $16.88 an hour just to cover the basics including housing, childcare, health care, transportation and food.

How do Wal-Mart employees make ends meet?

The UC study documents that Wal-Mart employees who lack health care rely on programs like Medi-Cal and Healthy Families at a cost of $32 million a year to the taxpayer. Thousands of uninsured Wal-Mart employees depend on public emergency medical services and the cost of uncompensated care, mainly to the counties, is $5 billion a year. Wal-Mart has slashed its health care costs to a stunning 60 percent of the average for comparable large firms.

The UC report also notes that Wal-Mart workers earning poverty wages rely on other programs such as CalWorks (or welfare), Food Stamps, Section 8 subsidized housing, and child care assistance at a cost of $54 million to the taxpayers. Staff for Democratic Congressman George Miller found that the taxpayers pick up public assistance costs of $420,750 a year when a typical Wal-Mart with 200 employees opens in any California community.

Ultimately, unionization will thwart these "low-road" employment practices. Wal-Mart is now the nation's largest grocery retailer, and here the union advantage is clear: unionized grocery workers in the Bay Area are paid $15.31 an hour, or 39 percent more than the average non-managerial Wal-Mart employee, and 95 percent of union grocery workers receive health benefits.

However, Wal-Mart is aggressively anti-union. To organize Wal-Mart will take years, and will require enormous resources and substantial public support.

Since 1995, the National Labor Relations Board issued more than 60 complaints, and found that Wal-Mart has prevented employees from distributing union literature, threatened workers with the loss of bonuses or closure of a store if they unionized, and illegally disciplined or fired pro-union workers. The company faces the largest class action suit in history on behalf of 1.6 million past and present female employees for wage discrimination and promotion gender-bias. Thirty other suits are pending for violation of labor rights including a suit on behalf of 200,000 California employees that claims Wal-Mart managers denied work breaks to employees and forced employees to work uncompensated overtime.

By exploiting its workforce and preventing unionization, Wal-Mart is able to increase market share, depress wages, and eliminate good union jobs. Wal-Mart's entrance into the grocery market has forced 25 supermarket chains to close or file bankruptcy and 12,000 union jobs have been lost. According to the Orange County Business Council, the spread of Wal-Mart super centers could cost Southern California 2.8 billion in lost wages and benefits alone.

Wal-Mart's success has meant extraordinary wealth for the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and his family. His widow and four children are the largest stockholders and have personal assets of more than $100 billion. The Walton kin account for five of the top ten wealthiest Americans. With less than 1 percent of their wealth, the Walton's could provide health insurance for every Wal-Mart employee. Sadly, Wal-Mart will spend millions fighting unionization rather than pay a living wage and provide benefits to their workers.

Immediately, government can regulate big business to protect the public interest and to stop companies like Wal-Mart from shifting their true costs onto unwitting taxpayers. Last year the state legislature passed the Health Insurance Act (SB 2) which requires firms with more than 50 workers to provide affordable health care benefits to all employees. Over one million uninsured workers and their children will receive health benefits as a result. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the Chamber of Commerce have placed a proposition on the ballot in November intended to repeal this legislation.

If Californians vote yes on Proposition 72 to retain the new law, this could indicate changing values and a shift in public mood. The race to the bottom and destruction of middle-class jobs initiated by Wal-Mart could end, and a new era of corporate responsibility and increased economic security may begin.

Marty Bennett teaches history at Santa Rosa Junior College, serves on the Executive Board of the North Bay Labor Council, and is Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County.