CHA-vs-SEIUUHWIn the continuing saga of the legal dispute between the California Hospital Association (CHA) and SEIU-UHW (Dave Regan’s organization), the judge in the case recently handed a victory to the CHA, ordering Regan’s UHW to submit to binding arbitration. The legal squabble continues to highlight the fact that the union focuses on what is best for the union organization and its staff (collection of dues) versus what is best for union members and/or consumers, which is what unions purport to do. As examples, the “sweetheart deal” under contention states that the SEIU-UHW would not “sponsor or support legislation, initiatives, or regulatory action adverse to the California hospital industry,” nor would the SEIU-UHW make any comments “raising concern about… executive compensation in health care.” In other words, as long as the CHA agreed to allow SEIU-UHW free hand to collect union dues from hospital employees, the SEIU-UHW would NOT act like it represented the “little guy” employees against the “corporate giant employer and it’s high-paid executives.”  Doesn’t sound much like a labor union, does it?