NUHW chief vows to keep focus on Kaiser

Officials from SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West downplayed any threat posed by the National Union of Healthcare Workers before defeating their upstart rival a second time for the right to represent the 45,000 healthcare workers at Kaiser Permanente in California.

But an NUHW win in this do-over of a 2010 election could have delivered a substantial blow to SEIU's West Coast operations. The Kaiser workers up for grabs in the election and employed at 27 major medical centers bring in about $40 million in annual dues.

Behind the scenes, SEIU pulled personnel—as many as 200 organizers from outside the state—and other resources from its 1.9 million members across the country. The incumbent SEIU spent $5 million on the campaign to retain the Kaiser workers. Now that they've secured victory, they're free to turn their attention to other labor matters across the U.S.

“And that's bad news for healthcare employers because they'll be back, probably pestering them on their own home turf,” said Christopher Cimino, CEO of Chessboard Consultants in Chicago.

On Thursday, the National Labor Relations Board tallied 18,894 votes for SEIU and 13,001 votes for NUHW, according to the NLRB, while 334 voted for neither union. The unions have a seven-day period to challenge the results. Caught in a procedural deadlock, it wasn't until February when NLRB set the election date. NLRB officials called this the largest mail ballot election in the board's history, supplanting the October 2010 election. Both elections were held over a course of a month via ballots mailed to the NLRB's office in Oakland.

While the status quo remains for SEIU, the future of NUHW remains murkier. NUHW's viability could be determined by how much support it receives from the California Nurses Association and its parent, National Nurses United. The nurses matched SEIU by pumping $5 million into NUHW's election campaign, according toOn Thursday, the National Labor Relations Board tallied 18,894 votes for SEIU and 13,001 votes for NUHW, according to the NLRB, while 334 voted for neither union. The unions have a seven-day period to challenge the results. Caught in a procedural deadlock, it wasn't until February when NLRB set the election date. NLRB officials called this the largest mail ballot election in the board's history, supplanting the October 2010 election. Both elections were held over a course of a month via ballots mailed to the NLRB's office in Oakland.

While the status quo remains for SEIU, the future of NUHW remains murkier. NUHW's viability could be determined by how much support it receives from the California Nurses Association and its parent, National Nurses United. The nurses matched SEIU by pumping $5 million into NUHW's election campaign, according to NUHW President Sal Rosselli. NUHW banked on the nurses union and its 74,843 members to change the outcome of the election, as NUHW waited more than two years for a second shot at SEIU.

The NLRB voided the results of the October 2010 election that SEIU won, but the board ordered a second election after siding with NUHW complaints. NUHW argued in 2010 that Kaiser colluded with SEIU to ensure victory by threatening employees that it would withhold salary bonuses and other benefits if NUHW won the election. This time around, Rosselli said Kaiser and SEIU employed the same tactics to snare the win and that the result says more about those unfair strategies than worker satisfaction at Kaiser. Despite the same result, Rosselli said the future of the NUHW remains bright.

“We're more united than ever with our focus on Kaiser,” he said. “We'll be beating back their concession cuts in staffing, making sure we're putting patients and the workers first over profits.”

Rosselli still has designs on organizing outside the state, and pointed to NUHW's relationship with the California Nurses Association. That affiliation will allow NUHW to extend efforts outside of California through work with National Nurses United.

Kaiser officials remained quiet during the election, perhaps worried of repeating any mistakes the led to allegations of unfair labor practices. They once again stated that they were comfortable with either union: “As we have said and shown consistently, Kaiser Permanente is neutral in the vote between these two unions,” Kaiser spokesman John Nelson said in a statement. “We supported the NLRB's election process, and were pleased to have met our commitment to facilitate a fair representation election, on behalf of the Kaiser Permanente employees who work in the statewide unit.”

NUHW couldn't match personnel with Washington-based SEIU. NUHW had 200 organizers working on the campaign, while SEIU had 700, Rosselli said. SEIU's Oakland-based local counts more than 150,000 healthcare workers as members. That's less than 1% of the total SEIU members found across the country. On the other hand, Kaiser's 45,000 workers meant more to NUHW, headquartered in Emeryville, Calif. NUHW reported to the government that it had 8,573 members.

NUHW still has time to challenge the election results, and that's something that the union will investigate, Rosselli said. Rosselli, the former SEIU-UHW president, formed NUHW in January 2009 with other ex-SEIU members after a contentious power struggle with SEIU's parent in Washington.

Having the unions bicker with one other is preferable to having them concentrate on the employer, said Bruce Clarke, president and CEO of CAI, a Raleigh, N.C. consultancy. Implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will drive up costs for healthcare providers, who would rather focus on abiding by the new law versus dealing with an aggressive union that wants to increase salaries and other benefits. It really doesn't matter which union emerged victorious in California to Clarke: “We don't want either union,” he said.