News

Country Club may owe $1.7 million to locked out workers

Labor board: Castlewood engaging in 'unfair labor practices'

Castlewood Country Club may have to pony up $1.7 million in back pay and benefits, plus taxes, for its locked-out employees after a recent order from the National Labor Relations Board.

The club is engaging in "unfair labor practices," according to NLRB Regional Director William Baudler, who ordered Castlewood to calculate the amount of back pay and the taxes due on it.

The club and union had reached a tentative agreement regarding seniority on Feb. 25, 2010, the same day Castlewood locked out 61 employees, Baudler's order states.

In June or July 2010, Golf Department Director John Hughes told a union member that locked out employees "would never be allowed to return to work" at the club, the order notes.

Although the lockout began in February 2010, the order says the lockout has been illegal since August of last year. That was when Castlewood issued a revised offer, in which it said it would bring the workers back -- as long as the club managers could fire or lay people off without taking seniority into consideration.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

"The club changed their seniority language to say they have the right to essentially permanently replace workers," said Nischit Hegde of UniteHERE local 2850, which represents the locked-out workers, who explained employers don't have the right to do that in a lockout.

It was that revised offer that amounted to an unfair labor practice, she said.

"When they put that in there, the real reason for locking out the workers came to pass. We understood that the club was trying to break the union, but with this (August) proposal they put it in writing," Hegde said. "You can't just say you want to replace the workers."

She said the amount of back pay owed the workers continues to rise every day they remain locked out, adding that the NLRB order means a court case is the next step.

"It is the federal government saying there is enough evidence to take Castlewood Country Club to court over this lockout," Hegde said. "Castlewood has the opportunity to defend themselves and they also have the opportunity to end the lockout."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

The case is set to be heard Nov. 7.

Castlewood General Manager Jerry Olson did not return a call, and has refused to comment on the status of negotiations between the club management and the union in the past.

Union members and supporters took to the streets near the country club once again on Labor Day to protest the lockout.

The protests have led to some union members both from UniteHERE and supporting unions shouting at golfers on the country club's course, making noise during an outdoor wedding ceremony, and in one case, a physical altercation between a golfer and a union member. Hegde said, however, that she thinks fences can be mended.

"For over 30 years the union members and the members have had a very harmonious relationship. There are club members who have refused to go back to the club," she said. "I believe the workers will be able to go forward and I believe the members will, too."

She also defended a flier being circulated by union members urging Tri-Valley Animal Rescue to move a fundraising dinner from the club. The flier includes the name and cell phone number of TVAR's vice president, Lisa Healy -- information Hegde said was available over the Internet.

"I think the workers have been suffering quite a bit and to have a dinner, a benefit at Castlewood -- it is what it is and people want to say something about it," she said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Country Club may owe $1.7 million to locked out workers

Labor board: Castlewood engaging in 'unfair labor practices'

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 6:38 am
Updated: Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 6:36 am

Castlewood Country Club may have to pony up $1.7 million in back pay and benefits, plus taxes, for its locked-out employees after a recent order from the National Labor Relations Board.

The club is engaging in "unfair labor practices," according to NLRB Regional Director William Baudler, who ordered Castlewood to calculate the amount of back pay and the taxes due on it.

The club and union had reached a tentative agreement regarding seniority on Feb. 25, 2010, the same day Castlewood locked out 61 employees, Baudler's order states.

In June or July 2010, Golf Department Director John Hughes told a union member that locked out employees "would never be allowed to return to work" at the club, the order notes.

Although the lockout began in February 2010, the order says the lockout has been illegal since August of last year. That was when Castlewood issued a revised offer, in which it said it would bring the workers back -- as long as the club managers could fire or lay people off without taking seniority into consideration.

"The club changed their seniority language to say they have the right to essentially permanently replace workers," said Nischit Hegde of UniteHERE local 2850, which represents the locked-out workers, who explained employers don't have the right to do that in a lockout.

It was that revised offer that amounted to an unfair labor practice, she said.

"When they put that in there, the real reason for locking out the workers came to pass. We understood that the club was trying to break the union, but with this (August) proposal they put it in writing," Hegde said. "You can't just say you want to replace the workers."

She said the amount of back pay owed the workers continues to rise every day they remain locked out, adding that the NLRB order means a court case is the next step.

"It is the federal government saying there is enough evidence to take Castlewood Country Club to court over this lockout," Hegde said. "Castlewood has the opportunity to defend themselves and they also have the opportunity to end the lockout."

The case is set to be heard Nov. 7.

Castlewood General Manager Jerry Olson did not return a call, and has refused to comment on the status of negotiations between the club management and the union in the past.

Union members and supporters took to the streets near the country club once again on Labor Day to protest the lockout.

The protests have led to some union members both from UniteHERE and supporting unions shouting at golfers on the country club's course, making noise during an outdoor wedding ceremony, and in one case, a physical altercation between a golfer and a union member. Hegde said, however, that she thinks fences can be mended.

"For over 30 years the union members and the members have had a very harmonious relationship. There are club members who have refused to go back to the club," she said. "I believe the workers will be able to go forward and I believe the members will, too."

She also defended a flier being circulated by union members urging Tri-Valley Animal Rescue to move a fundraising dinner from the club. The flier includes the name and cell phone number of TVAR's vice president, Lisa Healy -- information Hegde said was available over the Internet.

"I think the workers have been suffering quite a bit and to have a dinner, a benefit at Castlewood -- it is what it is and people want to say something about it," she said.

Comments

Mike
Highland Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:58 am
Mike, Highland Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:58 am
Like this comment

Compromise clears the path to progress.


Jeff
Spotorno Ranch
on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:15 am
Jeff, Spotorno Ranch
on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:15 am
Like this comment

You can lead a horse to water, but if the horse isn't thirsty it likely won't drink.


dublindanny
Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:07 am
dublindanny, Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:07 am
Like this comment

Oh laddies, thank god for the unions I say. Thank god for collective bargaining. This company will pay for it's sinful greed before the eyes of our Maker.


Marie
Castlewood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:26 am
Marie, Castlewood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:26 am
Like this comment

How can these people think its okay to cause a wedding to be disrupted? These people planned for how long for this wedding. Doing things like this is why most of us members hate the union.


Sal
Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:35 am
Sal, Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:35 am
Like this comment

Union yes!!!! I can't wait to see all the republican frat boy golfers whine about this one!


Chris
Amador Estates
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:46 am
Chris, Amador Estates
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:46 am
Like this comment

A parasite attaches itself to a host and sucks the lifeblood out of that host, while contributing little to nothing to the host.

We will see whether the unions succeed in sucking enough blood out of Castlewood. I hope it survives. If it doesn't the union parasites will have to find another host-victim.


steve
Parkside
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:47 am
steve, Parkside
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:47 am
Like this comment

Sal, if you could afford to golf at the Club, you'd see that most of the frat boys out there during the middle of the day are obama supporters (kinda like athletic supporter). They are the nuveau rich---Dem, green millionaires, who have profited at the expense of the working poor, like the ex-employees at Solyndra. Such hypocrisy....


Shawn
West of Foothill
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:55 am
Shawn, West of Foothill
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:55 am
Like this comment

Looking forward to Nov 7th when this is thrown out. Castlewood has the right to hire and fire as they see fit. It is sad that union employees are not confident enough to be judged solely on their job performance like the rest of us in the private sector. Where else other than a union shop can an employee get in trouble for working too hard? I have seen it many times where a new employee is reprimanded for working too fast or not taking enough breaks and making the rest of their "co-workers" look bad. Pathetic...


Sal
Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:56 am
Sal, Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:56 am
Like this comment

steve,

"you'd see that most of the frat boys out there during the middle of the day are obama supporters"

That is a complete lie (just like all of your right-wing rants). Do you have any proof for what you're saying? Of course not. Now go back in your Glenn Beck doom bunker.

BTW, any luck finding a job steve? Maybe posting right-wing lies on the PW a full-time job for you. Don't let your white hood get too tight steve!


J.
Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:08 am
J., Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:08 am
Like this comment

We might as well just let the government take over all private entities and businesses. Then they can tell business owners who to hire, what to pay them and what benefits they deserve. What happened to being able to keep or let employees go based on their performance? Castlewood is a country club that is trying to survive in this economy like everyone else. As a matter of fact, it is one of the only affordable private country clubs in the Bay Area. The majority of members are not "Republican frat boy golfers". They are middle class Americans who have worked hard and sacrificed other expenditures to be able to belong to that club.


A Pleasanton Resident
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
A Pleasanton Resident, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
Like this comment

Wait a minute are there some people in this blog that are supporting unions? This cannot be the same people that want to support a Wal-Mart in Pleasanton. First you say that the unions are awful and just take your money away then you say the union workers have rights? Talk about talking from two sides of your mouth.
I still think you need to go get a job at Wal-Mart and find out how much they do NOT do for you and then our taxes have to pay the difference.


elaine
Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:29 am
elaine, Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:29 am
Like this comment

i agree with J, the Castlewood members are hard working middle class folks who have worked hard to enjoy a benefit. This benefit creates jobs. In this economy there has to be give and take, unfortunately the union has screwed its members and tried to take more than can be given. The Pleasanton Weekly should really attend the hearings before reporting. you make it sound like the Union has won, not so. Castlewood bargained in good faith, the Union is greedy.


Sal
Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:49 am
Sal, Downtown
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:49 am
Like this comment

I love the attitude of here. Gee, lets kick low-wage workers some more and call them greedy while feeling sorry for spoiled country club members! I mean really! I supposed to feel sorry for country club members? Is that what we are coming to as a culture? Pleasanton conservatives are really a sadistic bunch of people.


Pete
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:57 am
Pete, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:57 am
Like this comment

Fantastic ! What a great win for these people, Everyone forgets that a contract is ratified with a handshake, NOT a fist fight, both sides sign and agree, It's only when one side or the other crosses the line of that contract like Mgt. did here that problems come up. There is progressive discipline for getting rid of problem employees, buy lazy managers don't use the language in place to follow through. Seniority is the only fair way to protect workers in this kind of environment. Both Union and Management have worked together here for over 30 yrs. Don't look for this to be thrown out on the 7th., I think this decision is going to stick. It's time for the rich white folks to get back to spending their money up there and the Union employees to get back to work.. ! Enough is Enough..


Stacey
Registered user
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:11 am
Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:11 am
Like this comment

What contract? You mean the one that was past its mutually agreed upon term of expiration?


Stacey
Registered user
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:18 am
Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:18 am
Like this comment

A Pleasanton Resident,

I can't speak for steve, but it seems that your statement has an underlying assumption that employees have no rights without a union. Employees have a right to form a union, no doubt about that. Employees also have a right to not be compelled to join a union (did a union give them that right?). I think the fact that no union brought forward the class-action lawsuit against Solyndra to protect employee rights is proof enough that while a union can serve such a purpose to protect employee rights, it isn't completely necessary.


New-vough Rich
Castlewood Heights
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:27 am
New-vough Rich, Castlewood Heights
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:27 am
Like this comment

I agree with Stacey the Castlewood members are nuveau rich. And there is no contract either as steve points out. There's only parasites who want to wreck wealthy people's marriage. I mean, what's more important? Food on the table or a high-class wedding at a high-cklass club. What have workers ever done for this country. You tell um Stacey because their only a bunch of parasites that feed off the heroic job creaters. Nuveau rich who can afford to belong to a club should be able to kick down at the parasites all they want to. It's newvough privilege.


Assult on personal rights
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
Assult on personal rights, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
Like this comment

How dare the personal rights of these private individuals, pooling private funds, on private property be assulted. This is another reason American is in decline. Private individuals and personal rights are being trampled !


Peter Piper....
Ponderosa
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:39 am
Peter Piper...., Ponderosa
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:39 am
Like this comment

P-p-p-p-purfect!!! It is a Assult by the Assine ninnys. P-p-p-p-p-p-p-private individuals and p-p-p-p-personal rights are being trampled by spongebob p-p-p-p-parasites who want to put food on the table for their families. What right do they have to eat when others can't golf in peace? Fight for golfers' rights! Its in the Constitution.!!!


Pete
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:40 am
Pete, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:40 am
Like this comment

NOPE, not that one Stacy, the contract that was in place prior to re-negotiations and the lockout that earned the C.C. an unfair labor practice and is going to cost them $1.7 Million...
The one that clearly defined seniority rights, the one that if signed on Feb. 25 2010 would not have included bumbs to the workers in the amount of $1,7 Mil. That Contract...
The funny thing is this is not going to affect me, or probably Stacy either, but some feel like these people are killing the goose that laid the golden egg... hey, you go work for the kind of money these Union workers are asking for, and then tell me their greedy...


Bored
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:59 am
Bored, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:59 am
Like this comment

The Pleasanton Weekly just gives the union people a free board to spout their anti employer venom by writing this garbage. Castlewood had this case dismissed in January and the union appealed it. The union lost it once and will lose it again, they are just using this as a rallying point for their followers. They need to keep the hopes of the workers up so that they won't defect.


Stacey
Registered user
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:17 am
Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:17 am
Like this comment

Pete,

OK. It was difficult to tell what contract you were talking about. It sounds though like there wasn't a signed/ratified contract for anyone to step out of bounds with. Typically both sides operate under the terms of the expired contract until a new agreement can be reached. That whole process seems to be in the realm of labor laws rather than contracts though. Since it has gotten to this point, I imagine that the unsigned contract proposals become evidence. Certainly they are not binding agreements.


Porgy
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Porgy, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Like this comment

thanks, arnold. glad that's cleared up.


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Like this comment

can we all get along?


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Like this comment

i'm here to try and help with the healing process...pretty is as pretty does!


Mike
Highland Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Mike, Highland Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Like this comment

It's in both side's best interests to promote good relations because good employer/employee relations are an essential element in creating and maintaining the kind of atmosphere that makes CC members feel special.

Mike






Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Like this comment

"any movement from the forward to the back is progress!"


Private clubs have rights too
Birdland
on Sep 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Private clubs have rights too, Birdland
on Sep 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Like this comment

If it's in both sides interest to promote good relations why is the union, UniteHERE/SEIU, harassing members and disrupting weddings? Sounds like a protection racket/extortion to me. Sounds like the club has been fair and the unions continue their win at all cost mentality.

Long term, getting rid of these union employee paycheck skimmers will go a long way toward ensuring the club is around for many years to come. I feel bad the employees have received bad representation but the club shouldn't be punished because Union Reps want to ignore the recession and rapidly increasing health care costs.

Not a member, but I consider the club and their members an important part of the Tri-Valley community.


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Like this comment

try putting on your happy hat and reaching a compromise...


To Cholo
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 5:42 pm
To Cholo, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Like this comment

People need to quit compromising with thugs. Didn't your dad ever tell you if you keep getting bullied you need to fight back. It's the only way the bully will ever respect you. Continuing to allow yourself to get bullied only leads to more bullying (the endless cycle of abuse).

This is a private club that by all accounts, except from this disruptive union, made a fair offer. From a previous article on the topic from six months ago or so, half the former employees have moved on at 1/2 the compensation Castlewood offered, and the other half are unemployed (except for strike pay).

If the union weren't in the way, looking out for their own self interest, there probably would have been a compromise. Unfortunately, doing what is in the employees best interest runs counter to the obstructionist mentality that's entrenched in the 1950's union culture that lives on today. The unions finances is the end game - it aint about the employees. They're just a means to a greater end.


Shimmy Shake
Siena
on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Shimmy Shake, Siena
on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Like this comment

"by all accounts"

Yeah, well, steve/Arnold/jimfol/stacey/nomad there's yet another lie for ya.


To shimmie shake
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm
To shimmie shake, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Like this comment

This is a private club that by all accounts, except from this disruptive union, made a fair offer.

The comment wasn't by "all accounts". In case you missed it, "This is a private club that by all accounts, except from this disruptive union,..."


Just the facts
Foothill High School
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Just the facts, Foothill High School
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Like this comment

Just so everyone knows - the greedy corporation of Castlewood? It's actually a member owned, not for profit organization. No greed for profit there.


Mike
Highland Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Mike, Highland Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Like this comment

In political campaigns and labor disagreements things can get pretty ugly on both sides, and some of the ugliness can be hard to move past.

I wonder if we couldn't learn from Japanese labor relations models, where the tendency is toward cooperative as opposed to adversarial negotiations.

Mike


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Like this comment

I don't believe that unions have a plan to disappear because of a labor dispute.

I hope for a reasonable outcome in this labor dispute.


Sorry Mike
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Sorry Mike, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Like this comment

Two comments:

"If it's in both sides interest to promote good relations why is the union, UniteHERE/SEIU, harassing members and disrupting weddings? Sounds like a protection racket/extortion to me. Sounds like the club has been fair and the unions continue their win at all cost mentality.

Long term, getting rid of these union employee paycheck skimmers will go a long way toward ensuring the club is around for many years to come. I feel bad the employees have received bad representation but the club shouldn't be punished because Union Reps want to ignore the recession and rapidly increasing health care costs."

And...

"People need to quit compromising with thugs. Didn't your dad ever tell you if you keep getting bullied you need to fight back. It's the only way the bully will ever respect you. Continuing to allow yourself to get bullied only leads to more bullying (the endless cycle of abuse).

This is a private club that by all accounts, except from this disruptive union, made a fair offer. From a previous article on the topic from six months ago or so, half the former employees have moved on at 1/2 the compensation Castlewood offered, and the other half are unemployed (except for strike pay).

If the union weren't in the way, looking out for their own self interest, there probably would have been a compromise. Unfortunately, doing what is in the employees best interest runs counter to the obstructionist mentality that's entrenched in the 1950's union culture that lives on today. The unions finances is the end game - it aint about the employees. They're just a means to a greater end."

And...

"Just so everyone knows - the greedy corporation of Castlewood? It's actually a member owned, not for profit organization. No greed for profit there."


Not a member, but I consider the club and their members an important part of both the Pleasanton community and the Tri-Valley community. I've participated in many fund raisers that have benefited many local non-profits over many years. The CCC has been a part of this community for a long time. I don't think a self centered union has the right to tear down decades of good because they can't come to grips with a recession. I appreciate the Castlewood Country Club, as do many other people in this community.

I dont feel the same way about UniteHere or SEIU.


confused
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:19 pm
confused, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Like this comment

Castlewood has been able to fill all positions that were once union with good people willing to work for the wage offered. This would be an indication they are offering a fair/competitve wage otherwise they wouldn't have been able to fill these positions.

Those still protesting apparently haven't been able to find what they consider a fair wage somewhere else otherwise they would have moved on. Perhaps and indication what they are seeking is not market.

If Castlewood can hire people on current wage scale why would they have to let these people go in order to bring back the union employees at above market terms. What am I missing.


C-hood
Laguna Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:24 pm
C-hood, Laguna Oaks
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Like this comment

Pleasanton Weekly union propaganda bs reporting.


Paul
Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Paul, Del Prado
on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Like this comment

Individuals are able to unionize if they choose. Once in a union, they can leave at any time. They are able to change employers at will, whether they're represented by a union or not. (An exception is that non-union employees are generally prevented from joining unionized shops, but that's another story.)

Similarly, private organizations should be able to hire, compensate, and fire talent as they choose. Successful organizations will tend to choose the best mix of skills and costs when staffing.

These are basic, everyday, common-sense business decisions, made by businesses and individuals alike.

Unfortunately the NLRB does not see it that way. I encourage everybody reading this thread to take a look at the following op-ed, from the Chicago Tribune, dated 9/6/2011. It concerns Boeing, the airplane manufacturer.

Web Link


Billy B.
another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 6:38 am
Billy B., another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 6:38 am
Like this comment

Why don't the Members of Castlewood BOYCOTT every business that advertises in the Pleasanton Weekly. Hit this rag in the pocketbook.
Publish a NOTICE in the 'Pleasanton Weekly', asking all the Businesses to withdraw ther advertisements. Every Week. And state that the members of Castlewood and anyone else that supports a free labor market will no longer support any business that Advertises in the paper and list the 'Names of the Businesses'.


fedup
Pleasanton Heights
on Sep 15, 2011 at 9:03 am
fedup, Pleasanton Heights
on Sep 15, 2011 at 9:03 am
Like this comment

Another example of Obama's appointed NLRB control left wingers.


Mike
Happy Valley
on Sep 15, 2011 at 9:38 am
Mike, Happy Valley
on Sep 15, 2011 at 9:38 am
Like this comment

Re. Billy B/steve's above post....

How would you like to have THAT as a neighbor? GET OFF MY LAWN!!!


Malcolm Gee
San Ramon
on Sep 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Malcolm Gee, San Ramon
on Sep 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Like this comment

Castlewood better hope the union fails to show unfair negotiating. After they appeal, the meter is still running on back wages...

CCC members will have to shoulder the back wages, and many members are upside down on their original membership...

CCC is at the point of no return and should have been smarter during the negotiation. This shouldn't be personal, it's business, but somehow this has become personal and the leaders at CCC are heading down a dangerous path.

Leave Obama out this, CCC got themselves into this conundrum and it's evident they do not know how to get out of it!

CCC leaders owe it to their membership to run the club professionally, by the looks of it, they are running it into the ground.


John
Castlewood
on Sep 15, 2011 at 1:36 pm
John, Castlewood
on Sep 15, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Like this comment

is pleasanton weekly owned by the union?


Lessismore
Castlewood
on Sep 15, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Lessismore, Castlewood
on Sep 15, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Like this comment

Stop by the union protesters and ask them if they worked at CCC or are they paid protesters by the union. Very few of them worked at CCC.


Reality
Downtown
on Sep 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Reality , Downtown
on Sep 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Like this comment

The fact is that CCC has had little trouble finding employees to fill these positions means that they are in fact offering a competitive wage and benefit.

On the flip side, many of these union employees have not been able to find jobs that provide an equivalent wage and benefit structure that CCC has offered the union.

This is proof that CCC has offered a competitive contract and that the union leadership is completely off base in the demands it has made during their contract negotiation.

These facts cannot be disputed. The union is completely out of touch with REALITY.


Stu
Happy Valley
on Sep 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Stu, Happy Valley
on Sep 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Like this comment

It is legal for a union to picket outside a place of employment; it is not legal to don cone hat and sheet and picket outside someone's home. I'm sure doing so would come naturally to stevep/nomad/steve/mike/jimfol/amy/chris and other personae, but it is against the law. What, aren't there enough African Americans to direct your KKK mentality toward? You have to direct it at posters here?


Gina Channell-Allen
Registered user
president of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Sep 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly
Registered user
on Sep 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Like this comment

This thread is becoming more bickering and name-calling and than actual discussion. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, fine. If you want to argue with each other, swap emails or meet for coffee at Tully's.


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 15, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 15, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Like this comment

what i don't understand is how come union workers were hired in the first place? didn't management understand that once a union begins to represent workers, that the worker's have a right to negotiate with management? most people seem to understand that unions do not represent management, they represent workers...what the problem?

i'm a peace maker kinda US citizen...what's going on here?

i agree, there is no need to argue on this thread and especially NOT AT TULLY'S!!! IF THAT HAPPENS, I'LL CALL THE COPS...I DON'T MIND A FIGHT OR TWO HERE 'N THERE, TAKE IT TO THE STREET OR TO THE liberry
INSTEAD...THANK YOU VERY MUCH...peace out!


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Like this comment

Correction: ...what's the problem?


Steve
Parkside
on Sep 15, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Steve, Parkside
on Sep 15, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Like this comment

Sal and stu, per ginas request, I'll be at tullys at 9pm. Meet me ther if you dare. I'll be the one with the white hood.


Mike
Highland Oaks
on Sep 15, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Mike, Highland Oaks
on Sep 15, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Like this comment

The more emotional the participants in a discussion become, the less likely the conclusions reached will have anything to do with the actual topic.

Step back, take a deep breath and remember that this is an Internet discussion forum.

Mike


Stuart
Happy Valley
on Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 am
Stuart, Happy Valley
on Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 am
Like this comment

Highland Mike states that "The more emotional the participants in a discussion become, the less likely the conclusions reached will have anything to do with the actual topic."

Sounds like Mike isn't able to talk and chew gum at the same time. Sometimes a combination of reason and emotion is exactly what is needed. Anyone recall Eddie Murphy doing his parody of an uptight white guy? That's Mike. I guess if you have deep anger issues, demanding of oneself that one not let one's emotions supplement one's reason ends up being the upshot. Stay calm, Mike. Don't let your emotions show, Mike. Keep it all repressed. Grunt grunt.


Another CCC Member
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Another CCC Member, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Like this comment

Boys, Boys Boys.............
The name calling doesn't solve a thing. Everyone has their passion for topics like this on both sides of the issue. It is easy to become emotional out of your passion. Not a good way to have a discussion. Some of the comments made by those not really involved in the dispute are made out of their dislike of "Country Clubbers" or their dislike for Unions. There are facts to be considered from each side which the Pleasanton Weekly doesn't give so unless you are "in the know" an objective thought is not possible. The Pleasanton Weekly shouldn't stir the pot like this unless they print all the facts. They seem to have an agenda here that shouldn't be printed causing an outbreak of emotions like I am reading. There's no convincing any passionate opinion for either side to be objective from the opposite viewpoint under these circumstances. One fact you should know is that the Union has never allowed the CCC locked out workers to vote on any of the proposals that have been made by CCC management to settle the dispute. The only vote that was allowed was to allow the Union team to decide whether any proposal was worth allowing a vote. Consequently almost all of the CCC locked out workers are employed elsewhere with only two that walk the picket line. I'm sure that most of the workers employed elsewhere could care less about a new contract. There is a deeper issue here and that is that there are a number of contract issues with this Union around Northern CA. Settling at CCC where there is such a small by comparison work force would set a precedent that the Union does not want. One last thought for you all to consider is that most Country Clubbers, CCC or otherwise, are entrepenuers or management people in their chosen fields. In those cases individuals survived and advanced on their own instincts without representation from a Union. It is hard to deal with the idea that someone feels "entitled" to benefits from an employer just because they have a family to support. It is also hard to deal with picketers shouting that "you're no good" and disrupting 3rd party events like weddings and fund raising events and leaving trash on the premises. The picketing is supposed to influence the public and the "company" on the issues but believe me it is doing just the opposite.


Cholo
Livermore
on Sep 16, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Cholo, Livermore
on Sep 16, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Like this comment

hire me, i'll say things like pretty is a pretty does, can we all get along and then i'd say now shake it's a deal...problems solved!



Mike
Highland Oaks
on Sep 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Mike, Highland Oaks
on Sep 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Like this comment

Stuart,

When the discussion disintegrates into name-calling and baiting, usually initiated by the individual who has failed to present a convincing argument, it ceases to be a discussion.

Emotion is fine. It's when the individual fails to control it that it interferes with the civil exchange of opinion.

Mike




To: another CCC member
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm
To: another CCC member, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Like this comment

"There is a deeper issue here and that is that there are a number of contract issues with this Union around Northern CA. Settling at CCC where there is such a small by comparison work force would set a precedent that the Union does not want."

It isn't just Northern California that has deeper issues with UniteHere, or militant unions in general, it is the entire country. UniteHere and SEIU are both spin-offs of AFL-CIO, and are now considered affiliates. These two spin-offs were embroiled in their own legal battle for control of member bargaining units for over 18 months; because members pay dues and both unions wanted the money. Under the guidance of Andy Stern, the SEIU wanted control of UniteHERE and these two union groups spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, fighting over who CONTROLLED which employee groups. The battle had little to do with who could best represent these employees and everything to do who received the union dues that were kicked up the chain of command. The recession, an Obama appointment, and a rare case of union common sense helped to reconcile warring unions but did little to inject any common sense into the union argument.

The dispute wasn't resolved until after the controversial Andy Stern, former head of the (militant) SEIU, received an appointment to head the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB). He was appointed by the OBAMA/BIDEN administration (the former a labor organizer and the latter a devout union supporter). The new head of SEIU and UniteHere have since mended fences, ended the lawsuits', and divided up their dues paying members. But, even during an extraordinarily difficult period for our country, the unions present themselves as hard driving VP’s of sales that want results and not excuses; economics be damned. Are the unions concerned about wage & benefit demands crippling their employer - doubtful! It’s all about, as Charlie Sheen has said many times to his own detriment, “WINNING!”

Not sure if the comparable salary survey presented by the unions was for “like” country clubs or included other UniteHere groups that worked for Hotel Chains in food service. What I am sure of is that any salary survey presented by this union is highly suspect and ignored the fact every other CC was looking to reduce costs. If there is one thing unions know how to do it is present data that minimizes their compensation while maximizing the compensation of their piers in the salary survey. They have it down to a science and people they negotiate with do NOT understand how many ways the salary-survey document is manipulated. The same thing is happening right now with Pleasanton employee contracts.

Interestingly enough, CalPERS is a part of this conversation. Why would CalPERS have anything to do with a conflict between Unite Here and the CCC? They shouldn’t… but maybe they do.


Lisa
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2011 at 12:36 am
Lisa, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2011 at 12:36 am
Like this comment

Thank-you , Sal!!!!!!!
Best wishes to the union and those they stand up for.

Anyone know what "assulted" means?

And isn't Castlewood the place where a double homicide occurred? Steve and his white coats can have it.


Marie
Castlewood
on Sep 22, 2011 at 9:24 am
Marie, Castlewood
on Sep 22, 2011 at 9:24 am
Like this comment

Lisa,


The double homicide did not happen at Castlewood Country Club, there are homes at Castlewood also. You do not need to be a club member to live at Castlewood.


Ivan
Ironwood
on Sep 22, 2011 at 9:36 am
Ivan, Ironwood
on Sep 22, 2011 at 9:36 am
Like this comment

No, to be a member at Castlewood, you simply have to have a scab mentality and a lot of extra money to play around with.


JP
Castlewood
on Sep 26, 2011 at 8:36 am
JP, Castlewood
on Sep 26, 2011 at 8:36 am
Like this comment

It's unfortunate how many supporters will step beside this Union blindly without asking the pertinent questions. I applaud the Club for not succumbing to such aggressive disruptive behavior and maintaining diginity in dealing with unruly union leaders that have have ultimately under-served it's members that were displaced. I've read on several occasions on this periodical how even Pleasanton's politicians and other vying for State positions have taken the side of "the workers"... shame on them, they only need to look at what similar employees at Pleasanton's public courses are paid to know that Castlewood offered a more than fair contract above the mean/median of all other restuarants and country clubs in the area. This union's leadership failed and continues to fail to recognize that, and as a result most of the displaced workers continue to have only part time work at best---evidenced by Ms Huber's (unite2850 organizer) statement in an article this month in independent news that because they were "new" to the job market that they haven't been able to find the same quality of work-- it had been 16 months at the time......this leadership needs to be questioned by it's members and it's supporters-- including those politicians who have chosen to speak their positions.


Curious?
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Curious?, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Like this comment

According to this news report, there was a hearing scheduled for this case on November 7th. Does anyone have any information on how that hearing went?


JBP
Castlewood
on Dec 12, 2011 at 7:01 am
JBP, Castlewood
on Dec 12, 2011 at 7:01 am
Like this comment

Union asked for postponement until early January.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.