SEIU

primary 8 26 tax rich ca

purple shirts?

target

JOK

john fund seiu bus sting fail

https://www.projectveritas.exposed/john-buckley

-=-=

-=-=-

-=-=

Ripple Co-Founder Leads $40M Push to Counter California Wealth Tax

crypto tax

Ripple

Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen and Tim Draper launched Grow California, a $40 million political initiative targeting moderate legislators to counter a proposed wealth tax.

Crypto Journalist

Anas Hassan

Last updated:

February 1, 2026

Don't miss out on the hottest presales right now

Explore Now

Ripple Co-Founder Leads $40M Push to Counter California Wealth Tax

Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen and venture capitalist Tim Draper have launched Grow California, a $40 million political initiative designed to elect moderate state legislators and push back against labor unions, with a proposed wealth tax serving as the primary catalyst for Silicon Valley’s latest political mobilization.

According to NYT, the effort, which began with $5 million checks from each founder in September, represents one of the most significant financial commitments from the tech and crypto sectors to reshape California politics.

The ballot measure that triggered this response, backed by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on net worth exceeding $1 billion, including unrealized gains on assets not yet sold.

“Whoever designed that wealth tax in the unions — wow,” Larsen said. “They woke up the sleeping giant like I have never seen.“

Ripple California Wealth Tax - Chris Larsen Image

Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen. | Source: Bloomberg

Tech Billionaires Challenge Union Influence With Business-Friendly Candidates

Larsen, whose net worth is nearly $15 billion from Ripple holdings and crypto assets, said he expects to personally commit $30 million to the organization.

“If it takes a couple of cycles, fine — that’s what we’re here for,” he told The New York Times when asked about potential November losses.

The group plans to target about a dozen state legislative seats this year, focusing on public safety, homelessness, and budget discipline, according to Shaudi Fulp, the former Sacramento lobbyist leading daily operations.

While Democrats control more than two-thirds of seats in both legislative chambers, Grow California will not engage in the 2026 gubernatorial race or expensive ballot proposition campaigns.

Both founders come from the crypto industry, though they stress that the initiative does not represent the interests of the crypto sector specifically.

Larsen acknowledged learning lessons from Fairshake, the crypto super PAC backed by Ripple that spent over $100 million shaping the current Congress.

Draper, known for Bitcoin-themed accessories and his persistent campaign to split California into multiple states, did not respond to requests for comment.

“The government unions do a great job,” Larsen said, adding with a laugh, “I have respect for the job that they’ve done. They show up, and they’re there consistently. But that’s going to clash with a lot of the things that are going to make California successful if there’s no counterforce.“

California Crypto Politics Intensifies Amid Governor Race And Regulatory Expansion

The wealth tax debate coincides with former Assembly member Ian Calderon’s entry into the 2026 gubernatorial race on a pro-Bitcoin platform.

Calderon, 39, who served as Assembly Majority Leader from 2016 to 2020, declared his vision for California to become “the undisputed leader on Bitcoin” in his campaign announcement video.

Meanwhile, Governor Gavin Newsom has intensified criticism of President Donald Trump’s crypto-related pardons, launching a state-backed website tracking what his office calls “criminal cronies.“

The site prominently features Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who received a full pardon in October after serving four months for Bank Secrecy Act violations, and Ross Ulbricht, whose life sentence for Silk Road operations was commuted.

Beyond political battles, California continues advancing digital asset infrastructure through the Digital Financial Assets Law, which takes effect in July 2025 and requires all crypto service providers to obtain state licenses.

The Assembly also unanimously passed AB 1180 in June, creating a pilot program for state fee payments using digital assets that runs through 2031.

Global Tax Frameworks Contrast California’s Uncertain Trajectory

While California debates wealth taxation, other jurisdictions are implementing clearer crypto tax structures.

Japan’s 2026 tax reform blueprint reduces crypto taxation from up to 55% to a flat 20% for specified digital assets handled by registered businesses, though the exact qualifying criteria remain undefined.

Similarly, the European Union’s DAC8 tax transparency law took effect on January 1, requiring crypto exchanges and service providers to collect and report user information to national tax authorities, with data sharing between EU countries beginning July 1.

“Tax authorities now have an automated dashboard tracking your digital assets,” wrote Bitcoin educator Heidi Chakos.

However, just like California, South Korea faces mounting uncertainty over its repeatedly delayed crypto tax regime, now scheduled for January 2027 despite lacking essential infrastructure.

Switzerland also postponed the automatic exchange of crypto account information with foreign tax authorities until at least 2027, though legal frameworks take effect in January 2026.

-=-=

Maggie Corser and writer Derek Seidman delve into the power of movement research and its ongoing impact on campaign strategy throughout movement history

We’re living through an intensification of crises around inequality, democracy, climate, and militarism. There is a lot at stake when it comes to building stronger movements. In the past, power research has provided critical – even indispensable – support for movements and campaigns, helping to shape strategy and educate and empower the base.

Moreover, while a lot has stayed the same in approaching movement research, things have also evolved. Today, we have access to sources, new technologies, and new modes of communication that past researchers could only dream about. With all this, the potential impact of research for campaigns – research efforts that are already happening and could be expanded wider and deeper throughout our movements – has only heightened.

We sought to identify key principles and lessons, as well as the nitty-gritty research methods from past liberation efforts that can guide us today. From the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and antiwar and student movements to the 1960s, to more contemporary worker unionization fights like Justice for Janitors in the 1980s and 1990s, we believe these historical case studies offer incredible insights and practical lessons for organizers and researchers alike.

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee of the 1960s

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was one of the most impactful civil rights organizations of the 1960s, leading the fight to dismantle Jim Crow segregationist policies through nonviolent civil disobedience, large scale voter registration, and leadership development. But while SNCC’s grassroots organizing is well-known, SNCC also had a sophisticated and well-resourced research department to advance its organizing work.

SNCC’s research department formed in 1962 with a clear mandate: to produce strategic research“directly or indirectly, related to field requests, or staff training and education.” It produced work that bolstered on-the-ground efforts in numerous ways. Detailed statistical profiles on demographics, poverty rates, and voter registration helped organizers better understand the communities they were organizing within. Power maps and opposition and corporate target research fine-tuned SNCC’s grasp on who they were up against.

SNCC researchers also supported popular education, contributing to curriculum and leaflets with compelling facts and figures, and they copiously documented the realities of violence facing local communities. They helped forge viable campaign demands, like when SNCC research director Jack Minnis closely reviewed 12 volumes of the Alabama Code of Law to identify an obscure statute that allowed SNCC to form a new, independent political party in Lowndes County, Alabama.

Crucially, research was not a top-down process in SNCC. Organizers and researchers worked together in close collaboration toward a common cause. The demands and urgencies of organizers shaped research agendas, and researchers contributed to organizing efforts. Within SNCC, its research and organizing arms operated as a single unit with constant interaction.

“Who Rules Columbia?” and 1960s Campus Protest Movements

The campus antiwar movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s produced a wave of case studies of university power, but none were more influential than “Who Rules Columbia?,” a 34-page pamphlet published during the 1968 Columbia University uprising against the school’s ties to war and racism.

“Who Rules Columbia?” was a power research tour de forcethat mapped out the university’s close connections to the wider corporate power structure and the war machine. It showed how Columbia, through its investments and board of trustees, was interlocked with the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and real estate interests. It offered the student movement a powerful analysis of how the American university was a critical component within a larger system of corporate domination.

Though produced nearly six decades ago, the research process behind “Who Rules Columbia?” mirrors our own today. Researchers worked collaboratively, mining news reports, property records, and university documents. They produced research prose, but also network maps that provided a visual picture of the composition of the heights of power at Columbia.

“Who Rules Columbia?” left a tremendous legacy for the movement. Today, campus organizers across the U.S. pushing for divestment from Israeli atrocities against Palestinians have explicitly drawn inspiration and even benefited from direct mentorship from the pamphlet’s original authors.

Whether you’re taking on the presence of fossil fuel interests or private prison profiteers at your college, or building coalitions between students and community members to support campus workers, you benefit from the legacy of “Who Rules Columbia?” and its analysis of the corporate university.

Researchers against the War Machine: NARMIC and the Antiwar Movement

During the U.S. war on Vietnam, power research directly supported the antiwar movement, with one organization playing a particularly critical role. National Action/Research on the Military-Industrial Complex (NARMIC), founded in 1969, functioned as the “research arm” of the U.S. peace movement, and for over a decade it assisted mass movements against war and militarism.

NARMIC’s small circle of researchers dug into obscure Pentagon sources to expose to a wider movement audience the weapons systems that the U.S. military was using against the Vietnamese people. Even more, they mapped out the major corporate war profiteers benefitting from the massive weapons contracts.

Examples of NARMIC’s impactful work include its yearly lists of the top 100 defense contractors in the U.S., its “Movement Guide to Stockholders Meetings,” and “Automated Air War” handbook that surveyed the different weapons and aircrafts used in the aerial war against Vietnam. NARMIC also turned “Automated Air War” into an innovative slideshow with a script that organizers across the nation could use in public events.

NARMIC’s support for the antiwar movement was not abstract. Localities would regularly call the group’s headquarters for advice on nearby weapons profiteers to protest. NARMIC researchers constantly educated the wider public through talks at everywhere from churches to campus.

Through all this, NARMIC transformed a moral critique of the war to include a deeper awareness of the living and breathing corporations that were arming, perpetuating, and profiting from the war. Researchers today — with the American Service Friends Committee, for example, who NARMIC was connected to – still draw on NARMIC’s inspiring example.

The SEIU Justice for Janitors Campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s

In the 1980s, commercial real estate owners increasingly subcontracted out their cleaning services to non-union janitorial companies in order to cut costs and maximize profits. Some unions in places like Los Angeles lost 75% of their membership during this time. The workers, who were largely immigrant women and men, many undocumented, worked for contractors rather than the building owners directly. They faced enormous precarity, poverty wages, and unfair labor practices. Unionization attempts frequently failed in the face of union busting.

In response, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) decided to pilot new approaches. Rather than target individual subcontractors or buildings, the union shifted the fight to the commercial real estate industry. Launched in in Denver in 1986 and LA in 1988, Justice for Janitors (J4J) developed an innovative organizing model that secured vital protections for people in janitorial services. The campaign developed a sophisticated and highly effective approach — indeed, some might say a blueprint — to strategic research that shaped how strategic corporate research is employed to this day.

First, they used industry mapping that was designed to understand the market in each geography. Through a mix of intensive desk research and field intel, they identified the building owners, building managers, and cleaning contractors across thousands of buildings — no easy task given the opaque and fissured nature of the sector. They also compiled profiles on corporate leadership, major competitors, shareholders, real estate operations, upcoming development projects, and any known worker safety or other legal violations.

Second, they used power structure analysisthat helped identify key players and sources of leverage. The rapidly changing nature of the commercial real estate industry meant that power mapping was essential to winning. J4J researchers profiled CEOs and conducted opposition research on their business connections, political contributions, tax subsidies, and philanthropic giving.

Lessons and Legacies for Today

What lessons can, today, draw from this rich history of movement power research?

First, research plays a critical role in supporting and shaping movement strategy and tactics.

While this may be apparent to some, it’s worth restating. Across all the case studies we reviewed, researchers and research centers offered crucial support to field operations, local campaigns, and street protests. Power can be opaque, and it’s not always, or even often, apparent to organizers who to target and how. Mapping out power structures helps guide strategy, identify points of leverage, and expand the surface area of attack.

Moreover, strategic research should be conducted at the outset as a foundational part of a campaign — not just an afterthought — in order to identify the best targets and sources of leverage.

J4J organizer Jono Shaffer drilled down his key organizing principles as such:“Principle one is you can’t win if you fight the wrong target. And principle two is, you can’t win if you hit the right target in the wrong place […] And so research is essential to identifying the right targets.”In other words, research helps identify where targets are most vulnerable and then campaigns can tailor tactics and demands to maximize impact.

Second, power research educates and emboldens and draws from the base.

It gives organizers and rank-and-file activists a fuller picture of what they’re up against and where they might locate paths toward progress or even victory. Lists, visual maps, and illustrations, especially, make even complex power structures more accessible. Research helped cohere organizations around shared analysis.

Even better, movements can democratize the research process. Through trainings, how-to guides, and facilitation, activists, workers, and community members can collectively map out power structures themselves, and this can be empowering.

This also means community and worker intel is vital. As SNCC staffer Jesse Harris told Howard Zinn in 1965: “…[w]e went around from communities, finding out, doing – in other words we were doing research – finding out why people wouldn’t register to vote, and why they haven’t tried to go down and participate. Why did the local power structure refuse to let people go down and register?“

Third, the history of movement research shows the importance of creative and collaborative research processes where research and organizingintentionallygo hand in hand.

Organizers, workers, and communities must directly inform movement research agendas, and experienced researchers can support by providing data and findings that open up strategic and tactical paths that are not necessarily apparent. Communication and collaboration, and a division of labor within projects, generates research that is often more than the sum of its parts.

Moreover, to ensure strategic research is applied helpfully, it’s critical to have researchers, organizers, and communicators, and community members all involved in strategy from the start. NARMIC regularly met with an advisory committee of antiwar groups to hammer out research ideas. The SNCC Research Department needed forensic researchers to support some of its most critical campaigns, but those researchers relied heavily on group strategists and field organizers to guide research goals.

And while desk research was vital for Justice for Janitors campaigns, sometimes they would find the most impactful information in the field – for example, when a J4J organizer passed a construction site with a “coming soon” promotional sign listing Wells Fargo advisors and key pension fund investors like the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, which J4J then successfully engaged to bring the owner to the table.

Finally, it’s critical to find mediums to communicate research clearly and accessible to the public.

Noel Day, who drafted the Freedom School curriculum that SNCC helped organize, once said: “Research needs to be intensive; what are the facts, how do they relate to the needs of the community, what is the best method of attack and why, etc.” But he also said that “Interpretation should be simple and clear.“

While analysis done by researchers in the case studies we examined was rigorous and detailed, the movements also found effective ways to communicate research to a wider audience. NARMIC produced visual slideshows on weapons’ systems. The authors of “Who Rules Columbia?” made visual maps of the campus power structure. SNCC put together educational “picture-stories” to support the campaign to build the Lowndes County Freedom Party. J4J researchers determined that for a “penny per square foot” you could give janitors living wages and health insurance, and this simple data point became a banner demand across J4J campaigns.

Continuing the Movement Research Tradition

In our current moment – and likely, for the foreseeable future — we will see no shortage of crises generating protest and resistance movements that call for all hands on deck.

It’s vital that we carry with us a deep sense of the indispensability of research for movements, past, present and future – something that we can all better understand by looking at our own movement histories.

For resources on movement research and power-mapping, see:

LittleSis’s*Map the Power Toolkit*and*Power Research Trainings*

For further reading on the case studies discussed in this article, see:

“*The Hidden History of the SNCC Research Department*”

“*We Were Interested in Regime Change”: An Interview with Courtland Cox on SNCC, Research, and Building for Power*”

*SNCC Digital Gateway: “Research Department”*

“*Who Rules Columbia?”: How Power Research Supported the 1960s Student Movement*”

“*The “Research Arm” of the Peace Movement: How Power Researchers Helped the Vietnam Antiwar Movement*”

“*Researchers Against the War Machine: The Story of NARMIC*”

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/big-union-victory-in-anti-union-texas-minimum-wage-workers-in-houston-show-how-to-win-better-pay

... Service Employees International Union organized the Houston workers. Workers in Denver earlier won $15 an hour by 2021. A new ordinance proposed in Minneapolis would require $15 an hour by 2022.

The federal minimum wage is worth only $6.10 an hour when adjusted for inflation since 2009 when the $7.25 floor was established.

“The contract workers get lower pay for longer hours as the airlines dodge their responsibility for the employees who make their businesses run and bring in their profits.”

That a local government in Texas is raising wages for mostly minority workers shows how organized efforts can win improved pay despite how Trump has turned the Labor Department into “the Department of Management Rights,”as Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik put it....

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/447330-major-union-endorses-green-new-deal

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) on Thursday endorsed the Green New Deal, putting it at odds with other unions that have been critical of the ambitious environmental agenda.

SEIU’s International Executive Board passed a resolution in support of the sweeping environmental proposal at its board meeting in Minneapolis.

“We’ve been inspired by the fearlessness and courage of the climate change activists whose direct action and bold demands for change have put this issue front and center in the national conversation,” said Mary Kay Henry, the international president of SEIU. “The Green New Deal makes unions central to accomplishing the ambitious goal of an environmentally responsible and economically just society.”

SEIU called the Green New Deal vitally important for people of color, saying their communities are most impacted by the environmental issues the proposal is intended to address. The union added that its members support “immediate, bold action” on climate change.

SEIU said it is the first national union to endorse the Green New Deal.

Other union leaders have been skeptical of the environmental proposal introduced earlier this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America called the Green New Deal “exactly how not to enact a progressive agenda to address our nation’s dangerous income inequality” and “exactly how not to win support for critical measures to curb climate change."

Separately, seven unions told House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) that they had “grave concerns about unrealistic solutions such as those advocated” by the Green New Deal.

https://www.alternet.org/heres-why-california-kidney-dialysis-clinics-are-spending-111-million-defeat-modest-ballot

... funds raised to support the No on 8 campaign are the most a campaign has spent on one side on a U.S. ballot measure since 2002, according to an Associated Press analysis. Dialysis provider Fresenius Medical Care pushed the total amount of funds for the opposing campaign past the previous record — $109 million, which pharmaceutical companies spent to oppose a measure limiting prescription drug costs — with a $5 million donation last week.

According to the nonpartisan California legislative analyst's office, dialysis companies bring in nearly $3 billion in annual profits from their California operations — yet, according to one dialysis patient Salon spoke to, Lorraine Lewis of Los Angeles, they claimed they couldn’t afford to give her a package of chicken broth after a treatment. She described her experiences at two DaVita centers in Los Angeles as “cold” and like an “assembly line.”

“It was obvious to me they were understaffed and overworked,” the 71-year-old told Salon. “I witnessed a death and that [made me feel] crazy, because I said, ‘the same thing can happen to me.’”

The man whom Lewis saw die during treatment was left unattended, according to her account, seemingly because of staffing issues.

“Two minutes later she [the technician] comes around and she looked at him and she started working on him and she went to call for the nurse and they put the put him on the floor, and gave him CPR but it didn’t work,” she recalled.

The massive sum spent to defeat the measure, and harrowing stories like Lewis's, belie the companies' claims that the measure will have an adverse impact on the dismal conditions in many dialysis clinics. Indeed, given that the proposition requires corporations to return excessive profits that aren't spent on improving patient care, and limit what insurance companies are required to pay for dialysis care, it seems like a minor regulation that would help prevent the kinds of dystopian scenes patients have experienced in said clinics.

Dialysis is a life-saving treatment. It helps patients with kidney failure by removing their blood from their bodies with a machine, cleaning out the toxins and waste, and putting it back in the body, a function patients' kidneys can no longer successfully do. A typical four-hour session can be grueling for patients, however. Moreover, there have been reports of unsterile environments in the California centers — blood stains on the floor among them — and terrible patient care. Yet each patient who has a private insurance provider is charged nearly $150,000 a year — a 350 percent markup of the cost of care, according to those supporting the measure.

Just this last summer, two California families were awarded $253 million in damages in a lawsuit against DaVita for wrongful deaths — verdicts the company said they would appeal.

Opponents claim Proposition 8 will keep clinics from covering all of their costs.

“When you add everything up it will only cover 69 percent of a clinic’s total operating costs,” Fairbanks, from the campaign advocating against the proposition, told Salon. “Prop 8 bans managerial costs and doesn’t allow things that you absolutely must have in order to have business in California, such as insurance, as a healthcare facility you must have medical malpractice insurance.”

Yet patients' experiences reveal that many clinics are already spending barely more than the minimum on their patients and facilities — and indeed, Proposition 8 would raise that minimum. Lewis, who has been a dialysis patient for six years, said one time after leaving her treatment at a Los Angeles DaVita treatment center she felt “weak.” Another patient was nearby when this happened and called the center for help, to which she was told there was nothing they could do because Lewis “had left the premises.” He wheeled her back.

“I asked for chicken broth and was told that they no longer do that because they can’t afford it,” she said. “They make $150,000 a year on me [and] they can’t afford a package of chicken broth soup.”

Sean Wherley, a spokesperson for the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers, the organization that sponsored the measure, explained to Salon how Proposition 8 ended up on this year’s ballot.

“Two years ago dialysis workers approached the union with concerns about poor patient care,” he said. “They attempted to organize, but they never held a vote because they came under tremendous pressure from these companies,” he said. “Some received threats to be fired, and efforts just flatlined.”

Wherley said industry threats that the centers will close if the proposition passes are merely a “scare tactic.”

“They have the means to keep these clinics open, it just won’t be at the outrageous profit margins they are making today,” he said. “They have chosen not to invest in their patients.”

Fairbanks claimed patient care in California is “very good,” noting there is “always room for improvement.” “They have patients who have seen bugs, and I’m sure they have, but that doesn’t mean all throughout the state of California the situation here is that patient care is suffering,” she said.

Yet Wherley pointed to a report by the California Department of Public Health that found more than 1,400 deficiencies during inspections at dialysis clinics in fiscal year 2016-2017.

“The industry is claiming the clinics in California are the best in the country, [but] the California Department of Public Health found more than 1,400 deficiencies in these clinics after only assessing a quarter of them,” he noted.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a union headquartered in Washington, DC that represents, for example, janitors and nursing home workers. According to its website, it "is the largest and fastest growing union in North America, focused on uniting workers in the key service sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide. The 1.9 million members united in SEIU across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico work in four service industry" divisions: hospital workers, long-term care workers, public services (government workers, child care providers), and property services (janitors).^[1] It is a member of the Business Ethics Network and Health Care for America Now.

Workers represented

Hospital workers:

"SEIU is the nation’s largest union of health care workers representing over 900,000 caregivers and hospital employees, including 110,000 nurses and 40,000 doctors in public, private, and non-profit medical institutions."

Long-term care workers:

"SEIU is the largest union of long-term care workers in the United States. 350,000 home care- and 150,000 nursing home workers provide vital services in both facility and private home settings for our nation’s seniors and the disabled."

Public service workers:

"SEIU is the second largest union of public service employees with 850,000 local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers – 49,000 of which joined SEIU in early 2005 in one of the largest union elections in U.S. history."

Property service workers:

"SEIU is the largest property services union, with 225,000 workers who protect and clean commercial and residential office buildings, and is the largest security union, with 50,000 private security officers and public safety personnel." ^[1]^

History

In 1921, seven janitor unions united into the Building Service Employees International Union (BSEIU). The current name, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), was adopted in 1968. "Chicago-based Local 1, SEIU’s first local union, is still organizing janitors and security officers today."

Membership grew from 625,000 in 1980 to over 1.8 million today. When most organized labor was shrinking, "SEIU was aggressively uniting workers’ strength – largely in the fast-growing service industries."

After the 2004 presidential elections, it split from the AFL-CIO. On September 27, 2005, SEIU, along with 6 other unions representing 5.5 million workers—the Teamsters, UNITE HERE, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Laborers, the Carpenters and the United Farm Workers—formed the Change to Win Federation (CTW) "to develop joint strategic organizing campaigns to help ensure that workers, not just executives and stockholders, benefit from today's global economy." Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer, was elected CTW federation chair – making her the first woman in U.S. history to head a labor federation. ^[2]^

Political contributions

SEIU gave $1,447,833 to federal candidates in the 2006 election through its political action committee - 91% to Democrats and 7% to Republicans. ^[3]^

Lobbying

It spent $1,350,678 for lobbying in 2007. $470,000 went to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists. ^[4]^

Personnel

Top leadership:^[5]

Andrew L. Stern, President
Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer
Mary Kay Henry, International Executive Vice President
Gerald Hudson, International Executive Vice President
Eliseo Medina, International Executive Vice President
Tom Woodruff, International Executive Vice President

Critical Books

Steve Early, The Civil Wars In U.S. Labor: Birth of a New Workers’ Movement or Death Throes of the Old? (Haymarket Books, 2011). Review

Contact

1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 730-7000

Web: http://www.seiu.org

SEIU

-=-=

Maggie Corser and writer Derek Seidman delve into the power of movement research and its ongoing impact on campaign strategy throughout movement history

Workers represented

History

Political contributions

Lobbying

Personnel

Critical Books

Contact

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External articles

Glenn Beck's latest enemy understands the power of popular pressure