In the not too distant past, the members of SEIU 503 were betrayed by someone within the organization. Ron Wiggins, one of our organizers, took a position with the HR group at the Department of Human Services (also known as the Department of Moral Superiority). That's right, one of the people supposed to help protect our members rights is now working in direct opposition to us.

I immediately have to question how long the courtship between the two sides went on, hidden from view? How many members representation may have been compromised by this conflict of interest? This is a question that our Union leadership needs to be asked and held accountable for reporting. If we didn't provide adequate representation for our members, SEIU 503 has opened itself up to the possibility of multiple lawsuits. Win or lose, that's our money and resources that would be tied up in that situation.

So why would someone do this? We can only speculate. Is it because the State pays more and has better benefits? Maybe they just don't believe in Labor Rights. Perhaps they just want to be on the "winning" side, and don't think that the Union stands a chance.

On the other hand, what does DHS get out of this deal? Ron has been involved with our bargaining. He also has direct knowledge of activities and strategies we have undertaken in response to DHS' treatment of our members. They might see him as their trump card; someone they can use directly against us in bargaining; someone to demoralize us in our fight against injustice.

Whatever the reasons, we cannot let them succeed! Now is the time to redouble our efforts to let the agencies know that we will not fall prey to their political machinations!

And now I have to apologize to the organizers who are still working for us. We can't let one rotten apple spoil the entire bushel for us. It does mean that we need to apply a little more scrutiny to the apples we select in the future.

I can hear you asking, "So Scott, if you're so smart, what should we do about this?" You may be surprised to find out that I'm not all bluster, and do have a possible solution: a Non-Compete Clause.

Having a non-compete clause in an employment contract is not uncommon in this day-and-age. It also doesn't have to be an oppressive, all-encompassing mandate that locks you into a job or makes it impossible to find work elsewhere. In this case, a simple limit on taking a job in the HR field with any Oregon entity that SEIU 503 represents the employees of should suffice. You can even limit it further by saying the restriction only applies for 1 year, or 2; whatever seems prudent.

I'm not certain what the latest PERU contract has to say on this matter. That looks like something else that needs to be investigated.

So speak out! What do you think? Do you agree, or are there other options to pursue?