[ad_1]
At the end of the summer, the Teamsters, a union look for On behalf of safety workers at Stanford Health Care (SHC), SHC filed a report with a federal agency alleging that workers were illegally intimidated by organizing.
Now, two SHC safety officers have come to The Daily to share how their faith in management led them to organize for improved working conditions and better compensation. The officers requested anonymity for fear of retribution from their employers.
“We demand recognition. We have voices. We want change,” the first officer said.
Apart from concerns about how the SHC has handled the officers’ organization, the first official said administrators show bias and treat some guards unfairly. The second officer said that they faced many scheduling issues and there were frequent conflicts between the management and the officers.
A Stanford Health Care spokeswoman declined to comment on the specific lawsuits, but confirmed that it respects the employees’ choice to unionize. In this case, however, the officers did not follow proper union procedures, the spokesperson said.
A representative for Teamsters Local 853, the labor union that primarily represents members in the Bay Area, disputed the claim that the officers did not properly follow the union, and a second representative, Reginald Keightley, wrote that the SHC “simply refused.” Union.
“Teamsters Local 853 is willing to work with Stanford Health Care representatives,” he wrote.
According to Teamsters, most guards have expressed interest in unionizing.
The first officer, who has worked with Stanford Health Care for more than 10 years, said he was motivated to organize with the Teamsters in response to poor treatment and unfair pay.
Officer Stanford says he practices health care “a lot of discrimination in our department. Management hires around their friends.”
The official alleged that an administrator had promoted his family member above the officers who had worked with the SHC at a higher level.
In addition, as a first officer, for the past three years, officers have received only a 1% salary increase, while management has received a large bonus.
The second officer, who has been with the SCC for more than four years, said one of the reasons for wanting to form a union was what he described as “minor” concerns. The second officer also alleged that the management had created and neglected issues related to scheduling, uniform selections and payment timings.
The second officer said that when the workers wanted a 12-hour schedule, they were unable to get approval from management and were unable to engage human resources. The workers were eventually able to switch to the alternate schedule, but after being assigned, they had to request shift times without knowing what the shifts entailed.
The second officer said that while management did not know when the shifts would start, the shift times were published “after the auction was completed.” He said the departure time was moved two hours earlier from 6 am to 4 pm.
“There was a lot of outcry, but management refused to reconsider,” the second officer said in an email.
The second officer also wrote that although the change in uniform was supported by many officers, he promised the committee to change their current “Class A Police” uniform to “polo shirts and tactical pants.”
Mandatory holds, which forced officers to stay on for upcoming shifts due to understaffing, were repeatedly implemented three years ago, the second officer wrote. The action was stopped after labor intervened as a reminder that mandatory holdings required all hands, including management, to go through their shifts.
The second officer explained that requests for paid time off are frequently rejected, this practice was temporarily stopped when the union’s demand was recognized by the management.
“But after that incident, even though no one went missing that day, we went back to normal denials,” the officer added.
Management even insulted officers who were injured on the job, the second officer said.
“A number of officers were injured in one of the units last year. In a nutshell, [a] The inspector misrepresented that the officers were ‘beating the bags’.
Stanford Health Care spokeswoman Julie Gracious declined to comment on the officers’ specific complaint.
Gracious told The Daily that while Stanford Health Care “respects that whether or not to join a union is the choice of every employee,” under the National Labor Relations Act, the proper way for employees to join is through a labor board election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Because the Teamsters represent other labor groups, federal labor law prevents it from pursuing this path, Gracious wrote.
Graecius writes that this is “a fact which the groups have confirmed and confirmed.”
While the Teamsters recognize the law prohibiting labor board elections, Teamster 853 representative Pablo Barrera said in an August statement to The Daily that “an employer may voluntarily recognize a ‘mixed custodial union'” for custodians and other types of workers, and that this has happened successfully.
The two officers said they have not given up on the union’s ability to organize.
The first officer said he and his colleagues hoped to receive “fair compensation” and “fair treatment” on behalf of the Teamsters union.
The second said in a written statement, “A seat at the table. A voice in certain decisions that affect our work/life balance (shifts/hours). Better wages and working conditions. Glory.”
But when they tried to organize it, the first officer said, “They got a lot of negativity. Stanford [Health Care] It has been unresponsive, difficult and unresponsive to our requests for accreditation.
The first official told the Daily that officers trying to organize were given the “run around” and told they had a “fair compensation package.”
The first officer said SHC posted “information about unions” in the officers’ break room, saying unions “make false promises” and “can’t do anything for you.”
Both officers were sent an email by their director not to join the union.
The second officer felt they were being investigated: “Department leadership showed up at briefings and made the rounds to talk to officers at different times of the day.” ” they said.
[ad_2]
Source link
