At the end of the summer, Teamsters, a union seeking to represent security staff at Stanford Health Care (SHC), said in a report to federal agencies that SHC illegally blackmailed employees for organizing. I claimed.

Now, two SHC security officers have stepped forward to The Daily to share how distrust of management has led them to organize for better working conditions and better pay. The executive requested anonymity for fear of repercussions from employers.

“We want recognition. We have a vote. We want change,” said the co-pilot.

In addition to concerns about how the SHC handled the organization of officers, the chief mate said the manager showed favoritism and treated some guards unfairly. The second officer said he encountered numerous scheduling issues and frequent conflicts between management and officers.

A spokesperson for Stanford Health Care declined to comment on specific allegations but reaffirmed that it respects workers’ choice to join a union. It said officers had not pursued a proper course of unionization.

A representative of Teamsters Local 853, a trade union representing primarily Bay Area members, disputed claims that officers did not pursue unionization properly, and a second representative, Reginald Knightley, said the SHC He wrote that he “simply rejected” the union’s recognition. Union.

“Teamsters Local 853 is willing to work with representatives of Stanford Health Care on the most appropriate means of establishing majority support for Senior Security Officers, Security Officers and Dispatchers,” he wrote. ing.

According to Teamsters, the majority of guards have expressed a desire to unionize.

A co-pilot, who has worked for Stanford Health Care for more than a decade, said they were motivated to organize with Teamster as a response to poor treatment and unfair wages.

Officers said Stanford Health Care “has a lot of goodwill in our department. Administrators recruit around their circle of friends.”

This officer claimed that an administrator promoted his own family members over officers who had worked at the SHC for quite some time.

In addition, according to the chief mate, executives have received only 1% pay raises over the past three years, while management has received substantial bonuses.

A second mate, who has been with SHC for more than four years, also said he was concerned about a “minor” salary increase, one of the reasons he wanted to form a union. The second officer also alleged that management created and overlooked issues regarding schedules, uniform selection and paid leave.

The second officer said that when an employee requested a 12-hour schedule, he was unable to obtain approval through management and relevant personnel. Employees were eventually able to switch to another schedule, but had to request shift hours without knowing what the shift would entail until they were assigned.

The second officer claimed that management did not know when the shifts would begin and end, but that the shift times were announced “almost immediately after the tender was completed.”They said the start time was 2 hours earlier from 6am to 4am

“There have been many protests, but management has refused to reconsider,” the second officer wrote in an email.

The second officer also wrote that management had promised the commission that they would consider changing the current “Class A police style” attire to “polo shirts and tactical pants.”

A forced holdover that forced officers to stay on due to understaffing for the next shift was repeated three years ago, a second officer wrote. It said the practice was halted after it stepped in to remind management that mandatory holdovers require all personnel, including management, not to overstay their shifts.

Second officers also said their requests for paid leave were frequently denied. The pattern they say temporarily halted when a desire to form a union became known to management.

“But after all that hustle and bustle, we’re back to routine denial, even when nobody’s off that day,” the officer added.

According to the second officer, management insulted the injured officer while on the job.

“Several police officers were injured in one of our units last year. [a] The supervisor made a blunt remark that the officer was a ‘punching bag,'” said a second officer.

A spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, Julie Gracius, declined to comment on specific police complaints.

In a statement to the Daily, Gracieus said Stanford Health Care “respects that every employee has the choice to join or not to join a union,” but that the National Labor Relations Act does not. For example, the proper way for workers to join a union is through the election of a Labor Relations Commission overseen by the National Labor Relations Commission. Because teamsters represent other labor groups, federal labor law prohibits teamsters from pursuing this path, writes Gracius.

Gracieus wrote that this was “a fact recognized and confirmed by Teamster”.

Teamsters recognizes laws banning the holding of labor board elections, but Teamsters 853 president Pablo Varela said that “employers can voluntarily approve a ‘mixed guards union’.” Stated. In an August statement to The Daily, I shared several cases where this was successful.

Two police officers said they had not given up on the possibility of forming a union.

The co-pilot said he hoped they and their fellow officers would receive “fair compensation” and “fair treatment” by being represented by the Teamster union.

A second person added in a written statement: A voice in some decisions that affect our work-life balance (shifts/hours). Better wages and working conditions. Respect. “

But when they tried to organize, the co-pilot said they were “encountered with extreme negativity.” [Health Care] Very unresponsive, very difficult and did not accept requests for recognition. ”

The chief officer told Daily that officers trying to organize were given a “detour” and that they already had a “fair compensation package.”

The chief officer said the SHC posted “information about the union” in the officer’s break room, claiming the union “made false promises” and “cannot do anything for you.”

Both officers said their directors also sent emails instructing them not to join the union.

The second officer said he felt like they were being investigated. ” they said.