capsfightingunioncaucus

Rank and File Scientists Demanding our Rights

CAPS LEADERSHIP HAS NO STRATEGY TO WIN BACK WHAT THEY LOST

BROWN DEMANDS A COST NEUTRAL BUDGET-READ WAGE FREEZE!

CAPS LEADERSHIP IS NOT PREPARED TO WIN BACK WHAT THEY LOST IN THE LAST TWO CONTRACTS…LET ALONE MAKE PROGRESS.

CAPS LEADERSHIP HAS NO WINNING STRATEGY.

ONLY YOU CAN ORGANIZE TO WIN A FAIR CONTRACT.

 

-CAPS LEADERSHIP’S TRACK RECORD:

  • GAVE AWAY 15% FOR TWO YEARS AND 5% FOR ONE YEAR TO FURLOUGHS
  • NO COLA, PUTTING US BACK 25% OVER 10 YEARS
  • LOST TWO HOLIDAYS FOR TWO YEARS
  • GAVE AWAY AN INCREASED PENSION CONTRIBUTION AND INCREASED MEDICAL CONTRIBUTION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATORY WAGE INCREASE. AND THEN ACCEPTED ATWO TIER PENSION
  • THEY REFUSE TO ORGANIZE CONTRACT WORKERS
  • LOSING STRATEGY FOR PAY PARITY (IT BENEFITS LAWYERS, NOT US)
  • INCOMPETENT BACK-STABBING GRIEVENCE MEDIATORS
  • GIVE  $$ TO POLITICIANS WHO STAB US IN THE BACK
  • HISTORIC BLANNING & BAKER LOSING LEGAL STRATEGY EXPOSED https://capsfightingunioncaucus.wordpress.com/category/capspecg-lawsuits/

 

Their strategy is to depend on politicians, lawyers and judges instead of the rank and file. Their practice is to demobilize the membership, disassociate from the labor movement, to deny members their legal right to regular membership meetings and to illegally expel members who stand up for membership rights.

 

They bet your pay parity on a failing decade-long show trial for supervisors pay parity!

CAPS represent both management and labor in grievances!  Like in a fascist union.  How can CAPS grieve against your supervisor when your supervisors pay CAPS and are invested in CAPS winning pay parity?  How can a worker expect CAPS to protect them from management when the supervisors pay CAPS voluntarily while rank and file must pay (at least) fair share!

 

President Dennis Miller promised regular membership meetings in his 2011 campaign. Yet he continues to violate both California Corporate Code section 7510 and the CAPS 2007 Bylaws Article III Section 1 and the illegally updated 2011 Bylaws by refusing to convene regular membership (not just informational) meetings.  The only meetings CAPS holds are informational-not regular membership meetings!

 

PERB’s finding exposed CAPS leadership and Blanning and Baker LLC. to be scofflaws. The leadership illegally expelled Rachlis and illegally suspended Cosentino.  The expulsion and suspension were overturned by PERB.

 

CAPS LEADERSHIP THEN EXPELLED RACHLIS AGAIN!  TWO TIMES IN 2012 ON TRUMPED UP CHARGES!  REINSTATE RACHLIS! TURN OUT THE SCOFFLAWS!

WE NEED REGULAR MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS RUN BY THE MEMBERS!  WE NEED FAIR ELECTIONS WITHOUT CENSORSHIP!

WE NEED A NEW STRATEGY WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON POLITICIANS, LAWYERS OR JUDGES, BUT ON THE MOBILIZED RANK AND FILE UNITING WITH ALL PUBLIC WORKERS TAKING JOINT ACTION TO WIN!

TO WIN A DEMOCRATIC UNION AND A FAIR CONTRACT SCIENTISTS NEED TO INITATE UNIT TEN ACTION COMMITTEES AT EACH WORK PLACE!

TAKE ACTION: JOIN THE INTER-UNION ORGANIZING COMMITTEE AND PROTEST FOR A FAIR CONTRACT AT NOON, JUNE 5TH, AT THE FRONT GATE!

 

ASK: When was the last COLA

Answer:  2006 (but it was insufficient; it did not catch us up). Today your pay check buys only 3/4s of what it did in 2000!

ASK: Why were the Bylaws changed in February, 2011?

Answer:  To deny members rights enshrined in the 2007 Bylaws for annual membership meetings. Rachlis revealed in Nov., 2010 that this right was being knowingly violated by Blanning and Baker LLC., the CAPS board and Gerald James Esq., for over a decade.  Without the annual meetings the membership  has been denied any semblance of democracy.  The annual meeting was the only legal venue for installing officers and putting members concerns on the agenda or  for addressing the assembled membership.  Thus all officers elected for over 12 years now were not legally installed and all their actions have been illegal. This denial of regular meetings is a denial of CAPS contractual duty (based on the dues for bylaws exchange) to the membership and is thus the basis for the 15 million dollar theft of services charge against Blanning and Baker.

ASK: Why did the new Bylaws eliminate the annual membership meeting?

Answer: Because Rachlis exposed the leadership for not holding legally mandated (CCC & bylaws) annual meetings.

ASK: When was the last regular membership meeting?

Answer:  Over 12 years ago. Disregarding the Bylaws and CCC, members have been denied an annual regular membership meeting for over a decade.

ASK: Why are members not allowed to hold and run their own regular meetings?

Answer:  Because Blanning and Baker LLC. don’t want the membership to control their own organization. They like keeping their fingers on the purse strings.

ASK:  What is Blanning and Baker LLC. (the CAPS agents.)?

Answer: It is not a law firm as members have been led to believe.  It is a Labor Consultation firm.  Their project is not to make you money but to make money for their partnership!  Their method is schmoozing with politicians and keeping you under control.

ASK: Why do we need a profit making labor consultant to run our affairs?

Answer: Considering their track record, we don’t!

ASK: Can CAPS be reformed:

Answer: Only if a rank and file slate with a class struggle strategy and program runs for office and wins, removes Blanning and Baker LLC. as agent and charts a politically independent course of action based on a mobilized membership.

ASK: What can I do?

Answer: Form Unit 10 action committees, talk to other Unit 10 members and listen to their experiences with failed representation by Blanning and Baker LLC., and discuss the failed CAPS steward system. Run for office to replace the entrenched team, remove Blanning and Baker and reclaim CAPS for the rank and file of Unit 10.

 

Unit 10 Action Committee                              contact Charles Rachlis (415) 205-0359

Labor Donated                                                June 1, 2014

 

The Unit 10 Action Committee met on 5/21/13 and adopted the following principles and demands both on the State and on ourselves/our organization.

We will build the action committee at the CAPS informational meeting on June 4th.

We will build for inter-union solidarity action to win back what was taken from us in the last contract on June 5thduring lunch at the front gate of CDPH in conjunction with labor demonstrations in Sacramento.

PRINCIPLES OF UNITY FOR ACTION COMMITTEE
1) Turn CAPS into a union run by the democratically organized, mobilized and assembled rank and file.
2) For political independence of labor. Fund only labor candidate.
3) Unite with workers organizations (public & private), employed and unemployed, to defeat the austerity and win a fair contract.
4) Run candidates committed to political independence, to class struggle tactics, based on organizing, assembling and mobilizing the membership to develop and struggle for  their own program.

DEMANDS ON THE STATE
1) No Give Backs No Take Aways!  WE ALREADY “SHARED THE PAIN”
2) COLAS back 10 years 23%
3) Pay Parity, Geographical Pay
4) NO GIVE BACK OF HOLIDAYS!   Holidays were accepted years ago in exchange for wage demands not granted, PDD’s were granted after they stole 2 holidays.
5) Make up pay for increased worker contribution to medical and pensions.
6) State should make up for years it refused to pay into CALPERS (based on good market)
7) Overturn new retirement requirement. Pits new workers against old workers.  No two tier system.  Equal benefits for all!  No extended vestment periods.
8) Health and Safety protection, promotions, & PERS fiduciary responsibility

DEMANDS ON OURSELVES (CAPS)
1) Hold regular membership meetings, not informational meetings.
2) Regular meetings at every job site (monthly or quarterly, more often in lead up to contract talks), linked by web for broadest democratic discussion.
3) Initiate CAPS members e-forum for democratic discussion of the membership.
4) Build unity with the broader labor movement for actions against the austerity.
5) Organize the unorganized.  End contract labor.  Defend the contract workers. Demand equivalent service time and state jobs for regular contract workers.
6) Supervisors out of the union.
7) For an active steward system that communicates, mobilizes and defends the membership.
8) Elevate the strategy of membership mobilization and assembly over that of  lobbying and lawsuits.
9) Reverse the expulsion of Charles Rachlis

Adopted at the Unit 10 Action Committee meeting on May 21, 2013

 

 

Advertisements

June 3, 2013 Posted by | 2013 Contract | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ORGANIZING MEETING FOR UNIT 10 RANK & FILE , CAPS RANK AND FILE AND CONTRACT SCIENTISTS TO ORGANIZE ACTION COMMITTEES TO FIGHT FOR A FAIR CONTRACT! MAY 7th Noon Richmond Laboratory Campus room TBD check posting in break room

Image

Union members met on May 1st 2012 before marching down Broadway to City Hall.

For Matt Austin this is a no…no!

On April, 30th Matt Austin, Blanning and Baker partner and agent for CAPS scabbed against the rank and file by demanding that management stop Unit 10 Rank and Filers, CAPS members, expelled CAPS members and contract scientists at CDPH from holding an organizing meeting. But the workers of CDPH prevailed, WE WILL HOLD OUR MEETING! We will  discuss how to win  a fair contract and build a democratic union. 

As ever Matt Austin is responsible for attempting to prevent CAPS members meeting.  Not that he is the only one to prevent CAPS members from meeting, but he is always one of those who do!  Each and every time he is always one of those who do.

CAPS president David Miller promised in his election campaign literature that he would hold regular membership meetings. But the real power controlling CAPS, Blanning and Baker LLC., will put up with none of that!  CAPS has not had a legally mandated regular membership meeting in over 12 years!  And we’ve seen neither hide nor hair of David Miller or Matt Austin at the CDPH laboratories since long before the election.

Labor organizations, or any organization that is not a fiction holds regular meetings.  Does CAPS hold regular membership meetings?  NO! Well we are going to hold a meeting. We call on state scientists to initiate job site meeting across the state!  Organize the contract workers make a state service union wall to wall!

President Miller plays footsie  and  poses regularly for photos with Democratic Party politicians (see back page pictures in the CAPSULE.)   But he runs from convening regular annual CAPS membership meetings because the leadership is afraid the membership will build a democratic union a throw out the parasitic labor leaches those corporate profiteers Blanning and Baker LLC.

BREAK WITH THE NO GOOD-FAITH, NO WIN DEMOCRATIC PARTY STRATEGY!

CAPS gave Brown’s Campaign 53K then he prolonged the illegal furloughs then imposed Schwarzenegger’s concessionary contract on us!  CAPS leadership caved in without a fight!

STOP FUNDING THE BOSSES POLITICIANS!  BREAK WITH BROWN AND HIS AGENTS!

 

Meeting initiated by the  CAPS FIGHTING UNION CAUCUS  open to all Rank and File working Scientists                                                                                               (415) 205-0359

May 4, 2013 Posted by | CAPS 2013 Contract negotiations | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CAPS: Kangaroo Court to Expel Rachlis Again-Rachlis responds to false charges

Response to the Budroe grievance against Rachlis to be heard by the MDRC on October 9th, 2012

 1)    The ossified self perpetuating CAPS board works obediently to maintain the subservience of CAPS to its agents (the labor profiteers at Blanning and Baker LLC,) Democratic and (on occasions) Republican Party politicians and ultimately the ruling class which profit by the demobilization of organized labor.

 2)    By denying members their right to annual/regular membership meetings, under California Corporate Code and under the 2007 CAPS Bylaws, for over ten years many members of the current board have participated in an ongoing theft of services.  The bylaws (literally second law) are a contract between the members and the organization; the members pay dues dollars and the organization is obliged to follow the bylaws.  Yet CAPS denied members their right to annual membership meetings for over 10 years and when I brought it to the attention of the board in a November 2010 letter, the board under the guidance of B&B wrote our right to an annual membership meeting out of the 2011Bylaws.  This may come as a surprise to CAPS but as far as I have been able to ascertain only corporate, fascist, and business unions deny their members the right to hold regular meetings where the members can discuss the business of the organization.

 3)    Adherence to the Bylaws and Policy Manual (PM) is not the practice of this leadership.  Had it been, CAPS would have held regular/annual membership meetings for the last twelve years (where members’ agenda points can be put before the entire membership,) Rachlis and Cosentino would not have been illegally thrown out and the CAPS leadership team would not have lost to Rachlis in the PERB decision # HO-U-1064-S which required CAPS to reinstate Rachlis retroactively to the date of his expulsion.  Playing fast and loose with the rules, are lawyer’s games and they may work to control and organization but they come  at the expense of worker’s democracy which is systematically denied.

 4)    The failure of the CAPS/B&B leadership team to deliver on the economic front and the ongoing denial of members rights has created a breech between the leadership team and the rank and file of CAPS.  By refusing to hold regular meetings CAPS leadership assured that the B&B method of filling the politicians campaign coffers with our dues dollars, and the filling of the partners of B&B’s retirement funds with millions from State Workers dues dollars would not be challenged by any attempt to mobilize the membership around a winning strategy and tactics similar to that which worked for the Chicago Teachers last month, and the Marikana miners last week.  Indeed the lack of workers’ democracy, the failure to take workers’ side in grievances with management, the multiple denials of legal counsel by B&B for workers attacked by management has left the rank and file with the feeling that CAPS/B&B work hand in hand with management instead of working for the members.  This is why an opposition slate running, of relatively unknowns, despite censored campaign statements and limited access to the ear of the membership won 25% in the last election by running on a class struggle-action program.  This type of rank and file response to such a campaign is unheard of in recent labor history.  Indeed the fact that the CAPS-Fighting Union Caucus (CAPS-FUC) won 25% in the last election has the ruling clique running scared and for that reason B&B’s stooges have launched a smear campaign to drive me out of the organization.  Miller/Chatsworth-Brown in their grievance of September 19, 2011accused us of running a campaign for the decertification of CAPS (which was not true then and is not true now) but consider the implication that if it were a campaign for decertification and 25% of the members voted for it B&B’s profit taking days and failed methods would clearly be numbered.

 5)    The current leadership team employs the so-called team concept of labor management relations assuring the supine obsequiousness of labor before management.  This method has left the membership with declining spending power for our shrinking dollar (uncompensated for by COLA’S), cuts in hours and wages due to two years of furloughs and two years of PLD’s, increased employee contribution to medical, to pensions, we lost holidays and have suffered increase of supervisory harassment, as well as racial, ethnic, age and gender discrimination expressed through arbitrary application of unreasonable work and reporting rules.  The membership, 2/3’s of which did not vote in the last election and of the remaining 1/3 who voted 25% voted for the opposition, is clearly not inspired by the leadership which reigns by the combination of inertia and denial of workers’ democracy.

 6)    Budroe bases his grievances on a ‘damning’ blog post at http://wp.me/p1OGRw-2Y published on August 25th (while Rachlis was still expelled) and claims it violated the PM’s rule against advocating for decertification.  The MDRC must reject this.

 7)    Budroe twists and misrepresents the meaning of the statements made in the ‘damning’ blog post. The following quote is lifted directly from the blog. We have highlighted key controversial phrases and will comment on their meaning further below.

 8)    “We also opposed launching a campaign to decertify CAPS without first testing the nature of the organization through assertion of membership rights as guaranteed by the bylaws, the Policy Manual, and the California Corporate Code.  Today we are convinced that CAPS can not be reformed without getting rid of B&B.  We have proved that CAPS makes contact between members a near impossibility thereby ensuring the perpetuation of the insider’s incumbency (Ms. Velez has been on the board for 17 years during 23 years as a member,) puts another weight on the scale of reform vs. decertification.  The combination of a self perpetuating board, the denial of regular membership meetings, and the vested interest of B&B’s partnership (they take between 800k-and 1.5million from unit 10 CAPS members annually and closer to 6 million annually from Unit 9 PECG members,) may require the formation of a new union and the decertification of CAPS and PECG.”

 9)    Budroe and the CAPS /B&B leadership team flummoxed from their defeat at PERB again overstretch the limits of logic as they try to fit a square peg in a round hole; the statement reproduced above is merely a statement of facts.  The facts are: there is no internal democracy in CAPS, the organization has illegally expelled me and illegally suspended Mr. Cosentino (thus establishing a track record as scofflaws) in turn it is reasonable for members of units 9 & 10 to consider that in order to establish democracy in our organizations B&B’s contract must be severed and to accomplish this objective necessity, internal remedy mechanisms may not be adequate.  May is used while expressing possibility as in “It may rain this afternoon.”  That it may not rain this afternoon is unstated yet implied by the very nature of possibility.  The statement from the blog reprinted above merely states a possibility, something scientists are often known to do; we call it stating a hypothesis.

 10) The recent denial of democratic procedure and other failures of the leadership indeed put new weights on the scale; commenting on this fact is not an indictable violation of the PM.  Indeed I am not alone at weighing the options before CAPS.  And there is no statute in the Bylaws or PM that denies members the right to talk about or write about weighing options.  Weighing options is not the same as choosing options.  Contrary to its own intention by expelling Rachlis twice in one year the CAPS board would be putting more weight on the scale that the membership is currently looking at.

 11) Budroe claims that our blog posting makes it clear that we do not advocate ‘reform from within’ and that rather we call for decertification.  Again the enmeshment between the entrenched and ossified leadership of CAPS can not disassociate itself from B&B.  The ‘damning’ blog stated “Today we are convinced that CAPS can not be reformed without getting rid of B&B”.  Without overstating the obvious we do not see the contract between CAPS and B&B as carved in stone-it must be renewed on a regular basis.  The CAPS relationship with B&B is based on a contract that the CAPS membership can, if it so chooses, not renew!  This would open the road to reform of CAPS and would shift the weight on the scale toward the possibility transforming CAPS into a fighting rank and file class-struggle organization.

 12) We’re not lawyer pussyfooters.  If we wanted to call for decertification there would be no question about the language.  It would be unambiguous and our whole record of the CAPS Fighting Union Caucus (CAPS-FUC) demonstrates this.

13) In his frantic quest to expel Rachlis twice in one year Budroe, makes additional attempts to falsify the content of the ‘damning’ blog.  For the CAPS-FUC the principle of not taking workers’ organizations to the bosses’ courts is inviolate and as such we have rejected the idea of taking CAPS to superior court to force compliance with California Corporate Code. However, as we explained in the blog, “…we can clearly see that CAPS is not a workers organization but a captive corporate run union fleecing the membership for the profits of B&B the working class principle of ‘labor cleaning its own house’ no longer applies.”  In his grievance, Budroe lifts the quote, “no longer applies,” out of context.  Budroe ascribes it to our arguments against decertification rather than to the clearly stated issue of using the courts to force some modicum of democracy (adherence to CCC-regular membership meeting, fair elections, the right to examine and copy the membership list, etc.)

14) It is time for CAPS to begin to function in a democratic manner and stop its illegal denial of membership rights and this witch hunt against members who demand our rights be respected.  If the MDRC reduces itself to the level of a kangaroo court dutifully and uncritically participating  in the Budroe witch hunt, a witch hunt which began with red baiting by Matt Austin in Superior Court, was followed up with addition red baiting by Budroe and Miller during the campaign last year and was reintroduced in the Miller/Brown grievance of September 19, 2011, then this august body will itself be soiled by its actions reducing its respectably in the world of adjudication one akin the McCarthyite House Un-American Activities Committee, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Moscow show trials which sentenced the best working class militants of the 20c to death.

15) In conclusion the MDRC has a choice. You can expel Rachlis on false charges and further expose the undemocratic nature of CAPS.  This action would confirm for many that CAPS is not Workers’ Organization but is truly a captive corporate controlled union reduced to being nothing more than a profit center for B&B and the dutiful enforcer of the capitalist austerity on the backs of the workers of unit. 10.  Or you can reject this witch hunt and open the road to workers democracy in our organization.

Charles Rachlis October 4, 2012

October 9, 2012 Posted by | CAPS WITCH HUNT | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

CAPS Leadership Ignored CAPS Rules

The following letter was sent to the board of CAPS on 09/14/12.

Open letter to the Board of CAPS,

Find attached and in the e-mail below a grievance filed by Charles Rachlis against David Miller and Patty Velez on January 9th 2012 for violation of California Corporate Code and denial of members rights to examine and copy the membership list (http://wp.me/p1OGRw-21.) To our knowledge the Membership Disciplinary Review Committee (MDRC) ignored and took no action to adjudicate this grievance, neither has the MDRC made any report to the membership on the submittal of this grievance, nor have they responded to the author of the grievance.

This lack of action on the part of the board and the MDRC stands in violation with the rules (bylaws and Policy & Procedures Manual) of the organization and thereby denies members just rights. This grievance was submitted prior to the illegal Kangaroo court which expelled Rachlis and suspended Cosentino. The leadership acting under the inept guidance of councel provided by Blanning and Baker LLC, Gerald James Esq. and Lisa Crevich Esq., decided to place this grievance in the circular file.

In the PERB adjudication of Charles Rachlis V. CAPS UPC# SF-CO-60-S PERB has recently found against CAPS and demanded that CAPS cease and desist from: “Unreasonably or refusing to apply internal disciplinary procedures to its members,” and from “Interfering with the protected rights of members to join and participate in the activities of CAPS by unreasonably or refusing to apply internal disciplinary procedures to its members.”

The PERB decision also demands that CAPS “Rescind the termination of Rachlis’ membership and reinstate him to active member status with all the rights and privileges thereof back to the effective date of the termination.”

Therefore Rachlis had and still has the right to have this grievance heard! The CAPS board and the MDRC must take action to address the violation of membership rules and the denial of the rights and privileges of rank and file member Rachlis to file and have the grievance submitted on January 9th,2012 (see attached) heard. We demand that the CAPS board take action to address the violation of membership rights by the decisions of the President (the sitting chair person of the MDRC.)

I demand that the CAPS board remove David Miller from the role as chair of the MDRC. I demand that the Board convene a meeting of a new MDRC to address the violation of memberships rights by the last seated MDRC which was convened to adjudicate the Miller/Brown v. Rachlis and Miller/Brown v. Cosentino grievances. I demand that the new MDRC address the violations of members rights carried out by the MDRC convened under the Chair of V.P. Patty Velez. This new MDRC must address the grievance (see attached) submitted on January 9th 2012. As that Charles Rachlis has had all rights of membership restored by the finding of illegal activity on the part of the MDRC/CAPS by PERB I demand the board assure those rights are respected and the grievance submitted on January 9th, 2012 be fairly adjudicated by an impartial MDRC without interference from the Blanning and Baker LLC, or any of the members who sat on the previous MDRC.

Charles Rachlis

From: Rachlis, Charles (CDPH-ADM-PSB-FMS)
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:02 PM
To: CAPS; capsfightingunioncaucus@gmail.com
Subject: CAPS: Rachlis grievance against Miller & Velez RE: violation of CCC as regards access to membership list

Date January 9, 2012

To: Membership Discipline Review Committees c/o CAPS Board

From: Charles Rachlis and Giorgio Cosentino

Subject: Charges against President David Miller, Vice President Patty Velez,

CAPS is organized as a mutual benefit non profit corporation which must abide California Corporate Code. CAPS must provide a venue for membership to convene a special meeting. That venue is provided pursuant to CCC and outlined Bylaws Article III Section 2(a); in which, a members’ right to petition the membership to hold a special meeting is enshrined. In order to reach the membership for the purpose of distributing the petition, a list of the members’ names addresses and voting rights must be made available with in ten days of demand. Due to the actions of President David Miller and Ex President Velez CAPS stands in violation of CCC 8330. Their reckless disregard for the law under which CAPS is mandated to function opens the organization to liabilities for denial of services, theft of dues, and denial of dues payers rights.

In order to accomplish the petitioning of the membership I requested from the CAPS board that they abide CCC and render a membership list for the stated use. See e-mail request to the board:

From: Charles Rachlis []
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 6:19 PM
To: CAPS
Cc: Giorgio Cosentino; Subject: Petition for special membership meeting

To the CAPS board,

According to the by-laws I need 5% membership signatures to call for a special membership meeting. I would like to circulate a petition to call for a special membership meeting. To do so I will need the list of the membership including their e-mail addresses, home addresses and phone numbers as is my right according to California Corporate Code which governs Mutual Benefit Non Profit Corporations such as CAPS. Please submit the list to this email address or let me know when I can pick it up at the CAPS office in San Francisco. I can be at the office this Friday at 11:00 does this work for you?

Charles Rachlis

President David Miller responded on behalf of the current board and refused to comply with California Corporate code thereby making it impossible for me to reach the membership to gather a petition to hold a special membership meeting. See David Millers’ e-mail of December 29th, 2011.

From: David Miller
To: ‘Charles Rachlis’
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Petition for special membership meeting
Dear Mr. Rachlis,

You have requested that CAPS provide you a “list of the membership including their e-mail addresses, home addresses and phone numbers”.

I respectfully deny your request.

I have instructed CAPS staff provide no such list to you, or to anyone else.

The CAPS Board is aware of your request and my response.

Sincerely,

David Miller
CAPS President

In a follow up e-mail I asked how to go about petitioning the membership as is our right. No response has been received to date.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Charles Rachlis
To: David Miller
Cc: Giorgio Cosentino ; “3risksys@gmail.com”
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Petition for special membership meeting
Dear David Miller,

Please explain how a member is to petition the membership to convene a special meeting of the organization without a way of knowing who the members are.

Charles Rachlis

“The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.”
IWW founding congress opening statement
________________________________________

Refusal to abide the CCC 8330 is violation of the law as enforced by the attorney general of the state of California. The Membership Disciplinary Review Committee may review the law below. For violation of members’ rights, for violation of the bylaws, and for violation of CCC in the name of CAPS we request that David Miller and Patty Velez’s membership in CAPS be terminated.

Submitted to the CAPS Board by Charles Rachlis on January 9, 2012

Submittal #1
CALIFORNIA CODES
CORPORATIONS CODE
SECTION 8330-8338
8330. (a) Subject to Sections 8331 and 8332, and unless the
corporation provides a reasonable alternative pursuant to subdivision
(c), a member may do either or both of the following as permitted by
subdivision (b):
(1) Inspect and copy the record of all the members’ names,
addresses and voting rights, at reasonable times, upon five business
days’ prior written demand upon the corporation which demand shall
state the purpose for which the inspection rights are requested; or
(2) Obtain from the secretary of the corporation, upon written
demand and tender of a reasonable charge, a list of the names,
addresses and voting rights of those members entitled to vote for the
election of directors, as of the most recent record date for which
it has been compiled or as of a date specified by the member
subsequent to the date of demand. The demand shall state the purpose
for which the list is requested. The membership list shall be made
available on or before the later of ten business days after the
demand is received or after the date specified therein as the date as
of which the list is to be compiled.
(b) The rights set forth in subdivision (a) may be exercised by:
(1) Any member, for a purpose reasonably related to such person’s
interest as a member. Where the corporation reasonably believes that
the information will be used for another purpose, or where it
provides a reasonable alternative pursuant to subdivision (c), it may
deny the member access to the list. In any subsequent action brought
by the member under Section 8336, the court shall enforce the rights
set forth in subdivision (a) unless the corporation proves that the
member will allow use of the information for purposes unrelated to
the person’s interest as a member or that the alternative method
offered reasonably achieves the proper purpose set forth in the
demand.
(2) The authorized number of members for a purpose reasonably
related to the members’ interest as members.
(c) The corporation may, within ten business days after receiving
a demand under subdivision (a), deliver to the person or persons
making the demand a written offer of an alternative method of
achieving the purpose identified in said demand without providing
access to or a copy of the membership list. An alternative method
which reasonably and in a timely manner accomplishes the proper
purpose set forth in a demand made under subdivision (a) shall be
deemed a reasonable alternative, unless within a reasonable time
after acceptance of the offer the corporation fails to do those
things which it offered to do. Any rejection of the offer shall be in
writing and shall indicate the reasons the alternative proposed by
the corporation does not meet the proper purpose of the demand made
pursuant to subdivision (a).

Charles Rachlis

September 14, 2012 Posted by | Grievance vs CAPS leadership, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CAPS LEADERS EXPOSED FOR UNDEMOCRATIC PRACTICES

California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS) Fighting Union Caucus

Contact: Charles Rachlis FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cell Phone: 415-205-0359
Email: crachlis@yahoo.com

Press Conference to expose CAPS and Blanning and Baker:
Expose corporate control of the state scientists’ union. Members of CAPS have been expelled for trying to democratize their union.

CAPS’ leadership ordered to respond to charges. On May 15th 2012, the leadership of CAPS will be required to respond to the following charges at a hearing overseen by the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB):

1. Violation of 3515.5: Failing and/or refusing to apply reasonable membership rules
2. Violation of 3519.5 (d): Interference of employees’ rights per the dills act

CAPS is also ordered to answer to PERB for using unreasonable methods to expel members Charles Rachlis and Giorgio Cosentino for attempting to democratize and communicate with the membership during a recent CAPS election. Rachlis will be demanding, at the hearing, that both Cosentino and he be reinstated, that regular meetings be convened with web link up around the state, and that the last election be declared null and void and that a new election be held based on the rights in the CCC. Hearing date May 15, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Press conference immediately before at 9:15. San Francisco Regional PERB office, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1532, Oakland, CA. Working class and union activists, members and nonmembers of CAPS are invited to come and show support for our struggle against the corporate control of our union and for union democracy.

The CAPS Fighting Union Caucus members are angry at Blanning and Baker for taking CAPS money for years, all the while violating their rights, bylaws and corporation code sections 7510 (b), 7510 (e), 7512, and 8330. After two years of failed efforts to get Blanning and Baker to call a meeting of CAPS union members to discuss furloughs, pay cuts and other pertinent union business, disgruntled employees formed the CAPS Fighting Union Caucus to oust current CAPS board members and to cancel the union’s long term contract with Blanning and Baker. In response to this, Blanning and Baker changed the bylaws and have refused to convene meetings or give membership information to CAPS members who would like to call for a meeting via petition. Every attempt to reach the membership to explain the conditions of the Union relationship with Blanning and Baker has been blocked or prevented.

David Miller, current CAPS board member and President, stated in November 2010 at a DTSC CAPS informational meeting, “no one cares about the bylaws”. Charles Rachlis responded to this, “The 2500 members of CAPS care. We are paying our money to Blanning and Baker to follow the bylaws and respond to our needs. Not to hold our hands and whisper sweet nothings while secretly making concessionary deals behind our backs”.

The CAPS Fighting Union Caucus was formed in July 2011, when CAPS members discovered that Blanning and Baker had changed the bylaws related to member meetings and rights. If you would like more information about this topic or to schedule an interview Charles Rachlis, email c.rachlis@yahoo.com or phone (415) 205-0359. For more details: http://www.capsfightingunioncaucus.wordpress.com

-END-

May 15, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , | Leave a comment