Northwest labor press., May 17, 2013, Page 3, Image 3

OSEA seeks union recognition for 300 Head Start workers
ation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), American
Federation of Teachers, Communica-
tions Workers of America, Machinists,
and United Steelworkers, as well as
staff from the Oregon AFL-CIO and
the national AFL-CIO.
As organizers made house visits,
workers who signed cards were asked
if they’d be willing to have their pic-
ture taken and used in outreach materi-
als; each day, the “Join us in building
our union” flier expanded.
Organizers say workers’ concerns
include job security, disparate treat-
ment, less-than-ideal working condi-
tions, and high turnover of staff. Col-
lective bargaining could address those
A multi-union effort
backed by the AFL-CIO
helped garner majority
support
Workers at the Mount Hood Com-
munity College Head Start program
are on track to get union representa-
tion. On April 29, union organizers
submitted cards to the state Employ-
ment Relations Board — signed by a
majority of the 287 workers — saying
they want to join Oregon School Em-
ployees Association (OSEA).
MHCC Head Start offers preschool,
child care, health screenings, meals
and other services in East Multnomah
County to low income families with
children under six. The program has 16
locations, and a culturally diverse and
mostly-female workforce with many
native Spanish and Russian speakers.
The union would represent teachers,
teacher assistants, aides, bus drivers,
kitchen workers, administrative staff,
interpreters, and other classifications.
OSEA represents Head Start work-
ers in Clackamas County, Lane County,
and in Central Oregon. Richard
Ramirez, OSEA director of organizing,
said the union had been reaching out to
issues, as well as the desire for better
training and health benefits for part-
timers.
Management’s response has been
muted: Letters were mailed to workers
“explaining the process,” and referring
to the union as a “third party.” But
MHCC Head Start managers have not
waged the kind of anti-union campaign
commonly seen in the private sector.
Under Oregon law, verification of
the union authorization cards leads to
union recognition — unless within two
weeks 30 percent of the workers sign a
petition in favor of having a union elec-
tion instead. That objection period
ends May 17 for this group.
Carmen Medel speaks at a celebration of union organizing success at the
Oregon AFL-CIO Office in Portland. (Photo by Russell Sanders, courtesy
Oregon AFL-CIO)
MHCC Head Start workers for over a
year. But the campaign ramped up in
mid-March when organizing staff from
other unions joined OSEA staff and
members — including members from
other Head Start locations — for a four-
day “blitz” of house calls, during which
they talked with up to 150 workers.
[Since employers almost never give ac-
cess to the workplace for union organ-
izers to meet with workers, most union
campaigns visit workers at home to talk
about unionizing.]
The multi-union effort was run out
of a single-wide trailer outside the Ore-
gon AFL-CIO Portland office dubbed
the “organizing annex” or “war room.”
It included staff from American Feder-
City of Portland files 11th hour
objection to park rangers’ union
In April — after all 15 park rangers
at the City of Portland signed cards to
join Laborers Local 483 — a
spokesperson for Mayor Charlie Hales
told the Labor Press that the City of
Portland favors its employees’ right to
join a union, adding, “We look forward
to the park rangers being part of the
Laborers union.”
But that generous sentiment was
contradicted a few weeks later by the
City attorney’s office, which on May
13 filed seven pages of legal arguments
with the Oregon Employment Rela-
tions Board as to why the rangers
shouldn’t be allowed to be part of the
multi-union coalition known as the
District Council of Trade Unions
(DCTU).
In March, the rangers had met as a
group with Mayor Hales to explain
their job and why they want a union:
Though they’re uniformed “ambas-
sadors” of the City who patrol parks in
pairs to enforce City regulations, 11 of
the 15 rangers make $11 an hour, have
no benefits, and get terminated after
working 1,400 hours because the City
classifies them as “temps.” They hoped
that by unionizing, they could bargain
their way into permanent jobs with
benefits.
But in legal objections filed 30 min-
utes before the deadline, Deputy City
Attorney Matthew Farley argues that
because they aren’t real jobs, they
don’t belong in the DCTU. The 11
MAY 17, 2013
temps shouldn’t be allowed to join the
DCTU because of their “tenuous em-
ployment relationship with the City.”
They don’t have regularity and conti-
nuity in their work schedules. Their po-
sitions are non-budgeted. They have no
reasonable expectation of permanent
employment. And they’re not eligible
for health insurance, paid vacation,
service credits, have no appeal rights,
and serve at-will. For all these reasons,
the argument goes, they are not like ex-
isting members of the DCTU, and
therefore don’t belong in the DCTU.
But there’s more. The rangers are
security/policing personnel, not labor-
ers, so they don’t belong in the Labor-
ers. Local 483 is wrongly “seeking to
lump security/policing personnel with
manual laborers.” No other Local 483
members do security or investigations.
Actually, said the City, the 11 temp
rangers are members of the “Commu-
nity Service Aid” [sic] classification, a
classification of casual employees who
work in multiple bureaus across the
City. So they’re not the same as their
co-workers in the Parks Bureau, who
belong to the Laborers. Oh, and one of
the rangers designs fliers, so he’s a
“Community Outreach and Informa-
tion Assistant,” which is a city-wide
non-represented classification.
“Community Service Aide? I’ve
never heard that term in all my time as
a park ranger,” said ranger Sam Sachs,
one of the four permanents. “Are they
saying our park rangers can work in
other bureaus?”
Lastly, the city points out that AF-
SCME Local 189 has attempted to or-
ganize the rangers, and has a pending
grievance claiming its other members
have the right to perform certain spe-
cific duties of the rangers. The City ar-
gues that the rangers are more like AF-
SCME-represented “Water Security
Specialists” and “Parking Techni-
cians,” than they are like their fellow
Parks Bureau employees, who belong
to Local 483.
“We did speak to those park rangers,
but at the time they seemed more inter-
ested in joining the Laborers,” says Rob
Wheaton, business representative for
AFSCME Local 189. “As far as I’m
concerned, it’s up to the employees. We
give zero weight to what union the City
thinks they should be in.”
As for the grievance, it relates to a
proposal that some rangers be hired in
Washington Park and made responsi-
ble for writing parking tickets at me-
tered spaces there. AFSCME thinks the
work should go to its members in park-
ing enforcement. But as of now the
rangers don’t even do that work.
“We kind of expected they’d ob-
ject,” says Local 483 Business Man-
ager Richard Beetle. “Personally, I
think this is all about temporary em-
ployment. They want to keep them in
temporary status and not have to worry
about unions.”
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
PAGE 3