California Federation of Interpreters

Judicial Council Approves VRI Program and Guidelines

 

SAN FRANCISCO _ Despite caution voiced by interpreters, the Judicial Council approved minimum technology guidelines on Video Remote Interpreting for California courts and voted to establish a VRI program for the judicial branch during its March meeting.

In response, CFI members are working on legislative efforts to establish strong parameters and oversight for VRI in the courts and other ancillary services.

The adopted guidelines are not a requirement for courts but rather a suggested minimum standard, said David Yamasaki, a member of the VRI Workstream group and Court Executive Officer of the Orange County Superior Court.

CFI is not against the limited use of VRI for brief, non-evidentiary and non-complex court hearings when in-person interpreters are not available or to expand language access outside the courtroom, particularly in the interview processes necessary to later in-court proceedings. 

“CFI is against misuse of VRI. We are against utilizing VRI in a way that diminishes meaningful access for Limited English Proficient court users or violates their due process. We are against using VRI for cutting costs at the expense of effective and accurate communication. We are against using VRI so that courts can avoid sharing interpreter resources,” CFI Representative Anabelle Garay told the Council.

During the meeting Friday, Yamasaki characterized the concerns expressed by interpreters and CFI as bargaining issues and added that other interpreter suggestions would become part of a document on best practices being prepared by the National Center for State Courts.

The recommendations to adopt VRI and related guidelines were based on the findings the VRI pilot project carried out last year in Sacramento, Merced and Ventura courts. San Diego State University Research Foundation evaluated the pilot by collecting short surveys from bench officers,interpreters[MF1] [AG2] , limited-English proficient (LEP) court users, and court staff.

Among the key findings:

·     59% of post-pilot survey respondents[MF3] indicated that VRI allowed for meaningful participation for court proceedings;

·     22% of post-pilot survey respondents were classified as neutral on the question of whether VRI allowed for meaningful participation for court proceedings; and

·     cost savings of using VRI could not be evaluated since employee interpreters were used in the pilot program. 

“A much better use of funds would be to invest in growing a solid interpreter workforce so that in-person interpreters are readily available,” said San Mateo Court Interpreter Carol Palacio, who is part of the Region 2 committee that will meet and confer on VRI. 

Interpreters who participated in the pilot program expressed concerns as to whether there were inaccuracies and omissions. They pointed out that VRI is highly prone to error, takes longer than in-person interpreting, and has many technical problems. VRI also adds another layer of difficulty to interpreters’ work by asking us to operate equipment that otherwise would not exist with in-person interpreting. 

CFI also questions whether the surveys given to interpreters could meaningfully measure a VRI event’s efficacy. During the first week of the pilot a 3-page survey was used but it was later parsed down to 5 questions. Interpreters who participated in the pilot admitted that there was not enough time to fill out the surveys given there was only 5 minutes or less between VRI events.

Region 4 is currently bargaining over VRI and Region 2 is expected to meet and confer on VRI soon. Region 3 Courts have a side letter on VRI with CFI.

 


 [MF1]There is doubt as to whether the surveys given to interpreters were a meaningful measure of VRI event efficacy; for the first week of the pilot the VRI interpreter was given a 3-page survey, and at some moment thereafter it was parsed down to 5 questions on a sheet of paper. Our members who participated in the pilot admitted that there was not enough time to fill them out, or they simply neglected to fill out the survey … given there was only 5 minutes or less between VRI events. At best, survey completion was hit-and-miss among the interpreters.

 [AG2]

 [MF3]According to Tyler Nguyen, Angie Birchfield, and other participants in the pilot, interpreters were not interviewed or surveyed at the end or after the pilot project. 

 

Region 4 Bargaining Update 

March 11& 19, 2019 Orange County and Riverside County

The focus and energy in the past two bargaining sessions has been on VRI. 

VRI is already being implemented by the courts; therefore, our focus at the table is not to fight against its implementation, but rather, to put together some strong guidelines when using VRI that will do some damage control to our profession and code of ethics. 
 
You Bargaining Team proposed an additional stipend of 25% for any day that the interpreter performs VRI. The courts presented a counter proposal of a 15% stipend during the Orange County bargaining session. Your Bargaining Team is working on a response to the Court’s counter proposal. 
 
Your Bargaining Team is aware of the impact VRI will have on our profession; therefore, we have been working and will continue to work diligently to take into account all possible impacts. 
 
The courts have not responded to our last counter proposal for a 23% wage increase. Your Bargaining Team does not plan reaching a tentative agreement on VRI until we get more momentum going with the wage proposals. 
 
Another pending topic is team interpreting. Your Bargaining Team wants to encourage you to follow the Team Interpreting Standard Best Practices. Doing a trial or long hearing without team interpreting is not only detrimental to the quality of the interpretation that we provide but also to our profession –it reduces the need for more interpreters. 
 
If you do not know what the Team Interpreting Standard Best Practices are, please contact your steward and ask for a copy. 
 
We are down to our most important topics: TEAM INTERPRETING, VRI AND WAGES. 
 
Your Bargaining Team needs your full support now more than ever to achieve the best contract possible for ALL.
 
Our unity is our strength: By presenting a united front before administration we show our power.  
 
A big “Thank you!” to all interpreters who participated in the “Watch and Support” during the last two bargaining sessions. 
 
From Orange County: 
Pam Santos, Ben Sanchez, Bethany Barcenas, 
Jina Lee, Giselda Sanchez, Leticia Aceret, Frances Marino, Christina Mayorga, Kiet Tuan Huyn, Phi Ho, Veronica Herrera 
 
From San Diego: 
Shalom Solomon 
 
From Riverside: 
Myrna Yanez
 
We encourage you to attend the negotiations. If you will be participating in the Watch & Support, please submit your time off request today and email us at [email protected]to reserve your spot. 
 
Our next bargaining session is scheduled for April 22, 2019. Location TBD.
 
Please support your bargaining team by wearing red on the days we are at the table and also every Wednesday. 
 
In union there is strength. 
It’s the “U” and “I” in union that makes us strong.
 
 
In Solidarity, 
 
Your Region 4, Bargaining Team 
CFI Local 39000, CWA-TNG
 
Maria Benitez
Jackie Ruiz
Silvia San Martín 
LouLou Tovar
Rebeca Vera
Ana Fuller
Ed Venegas- Spokesperson 

 

Judicial Council formed the Interpreter Act Working Group

 

n August of this year, in line with Recommendation 74 of the Language Access Plan, the Judicial Council formed the Interpreter Act Working Group; it was composed of court CEO’s, Judicial Council administrators and staff from the Court Interpreter Program, as well as both independent and union member employee interpreters. The Working Group was charged with reviewing and offering perspective on the present state of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, now incorporated into the California Government Code under Title 8, Chapter 7.5, Sections 71800 – 71829. The specific focus in the process was the four Region bargaining structure[1], the 100- & 45-Day Rule[2], and the Cross-assignment system[3]. The Working Group’s co-chairs, Judge Austin, formerly the chair of the Court Interpreter Advisory Group, and Kim Turner, Mendocino Superior Court CEO, explained that these specific topics had come to be on the group’s agenda because of commentary and inquiries from “shareholders” to language access in the courts. 

It should be noted that the Interpreter Act Working Group basically was a gathering for brainstorming ideas and perceptions about how these points in the interpreter law were functioning; the group was to determine whether these points in the law addressed the issue of language well, poorly, or so badly there must be a change, and whether that change requires a slight amendment to the law, or completely changing how the focus subject is handled within language access law. The group had the ability to make recommendations, but because of disparity in certain points of view and opinions, no recommendation was offered; instead the group compiled a summation of the variation, conflict, and agreement among the participant’s views as they relate to each one of the topics covered.

During the initial meeting of the Interpreter Act Working Group during the summer of 2017 there was commentary and questions raised concerning the lack of union member employee interpreters at the discussion. At the strong behest of a coalition of stakeholders, a total of five interpreters came to participate – four from CFI Local 39000, and one from Interpreter Guild of America, a unit in Local 39521.[4]There was value to the court interpreter union’s involvement, and value in our knowledge-base. This could be a step toward a more positive relationship between the Judicial Council and union member interpreters, the mainstays of providing language access in the courts. The feel during meetings[5]was welcoming, and non-interpreter participants were genuinely interested in the interpreter perspective; all interpreters who participated felt that we were accepted as equals at the roundtable of expertise. However, we had no illusions; we well knew that there would be disagreement, if not conflict on some of the issues, and the possibility that there would not be room for compromise on some of the discussion topics.

Both union member employee interpreter (CFI Local 39000) and independent contractor (Interpreter Guild of America) collaborated, not only during the meetings, but in preparation video chats before the scheduled phone calls. The result is aligning our combined perspective on the working group’s focus points. 

100- & 45-Day Rule

The attending court CEO’s and Language Access Services offices around the states presented the complaint that there are not enough certified/registered interpreters to service the needs of the courts; additionally, rural courts are found to have an even more dire need. The argument was that revoking the 100-day rule would remove the restraint against using independent contractors past the hundredth day, thereby creating a much larger pool to service the courts’ language needs. 

The interpreter response was that because of marginal requirements to offer employment after the 45thday, there could be something that would truly increase interpreter resources, such as offering a full-time position after a longer period of providing services as an independent contractor. 

Cross-assignment System

The consensus within the Working Group is that the cross-assignment system is working well in some jurisdictions/regions and is inadequately meeting the language access needs in others. The large urban courts with more interpreter resources become the provider courts to those with fewer interpreters on the rosters, or varied language groups to choose from. There is a reticence on the part of resource-flush courts to share their interpreter pool, as presently it is difficult to know what their needs are far enough in advance to confidently share. Also problematic in cross-assigning is that the administrative procedures are cumbersome; centralizing the coordination toward state-wide collaboration could improve efficiencies; there was agreement that fixing this could go a long way toward better interpreter resource sharing. 

In comparison with other jurisdictions, the Sacramento Court has utilized the cross-assignment system more effectively; while other jurisdictions are only willing to cross-assign intermittent/part-time interpreters, if a full-time Sacramento interpreter is not needed for that day, the court will authorize him/her for cross-assignment. The interpreters in the group presented the following suggestions:

  • In the cross-assignment system enable earlier authorization of release from the home court instead of the day before; anywhere from 2 to 5 days prior was held out as an example.
  • All courts be willing to cross-assign any category of interpreter, whether full-time, part-time, or intermittent.
  • In line with the Interpreter Act, courts (particularly provider courts) create full-time positions with the requisite that if not used at the home court, the interpreter would be cross-assigned. Provider courts should be given incentives to create these positions, as well as offer incentives to interpreters recruited into these positions.
  • Consider making interpreters State employees, thereby allowing for sharing resources statewide, with centralized coordination.

Regional Bargaining vs. Statewide General Contract

The impetus for initiating this series of meetings was to address the regional bargaining structure; this was the issue on which the group spent the lion’s share of time. Regional bargaining is complicated for the Union in that, although there was some uniformity throughout the different contracts, there was enough disparity to cause most interpreters to gravitate toward regions with more favorable conditions, resulting in shortages in other areas of the state. All agreed that this structure is costly for all participants, rehashing the same issues with varying results for both courts and interpreters.

Although most of the participants expressed that a general state-wide contract would be preferable to the present system, the court representatives from Los Angeles and San Diego stated that they would rather be separated from any statewide structure, and bargain directly with the interpreters locally, unencumbered by other jurisdictions. Most shocking was San Diego’s suggestion that the interpreters simply be placed into the existing unions (SEIU, AFSCME) to simplify negotiations; the Union reminded the San Diego representative that union affiliation is determined by the interpreters, not local court administration. The interpreters present made it clear that CFI Local 39000 TNG-CWA is the representative of all employee interpreters in California, whether that structure be regional, or statewide.[6]Searching for a compromise, the staff leading the discussion suggested a “hybrid,” allowing the larger courts to opt-out and negotiate separate from other “regions” composed of the smaller jurisdictions. The interpreters clearly rejected the concept, mostly because in practice there is no change from the regional structure, just different names, and possibly even more groups with whom to carry out bargaining. The hybrid version is not a solution for anyone, save Los Angeles and San Diego.

Although the idea of a statewide bargaining for a general contract is advantageous to interpreters (and court administration) in many ways, there is a pantheon of kinks to be worked out:

  • There is a high level of investment in local pensions plans; it is not clear if one could keep their present plan and benefits, or would one have to transfer into a State of California plan. The consensus is that a transition period would be needed to address this issue; there was a positive view for allowing present interpreters decide which benefit set is preferred. 
  • It is unclear how to handle issues of seniority and standardizing pay scales; some jurisdictions have steps, while others do not. 
  • As part of going to a statewide structure for bargaining, if interpreters are then made state employees, one issue is whether they will be required to relocate to address needs, similar to what is standard for other employees in the judicial system, such as judges.
  • There are any number of complexities in consolidating the present four contracts into one statewide general contract. One consideration is to have a general contract that addresses the basic labor issues – salary, seniority, etc. – and then handle issues unique and specific to each jurisdiction via side letters. When pressed on that detail, the jurisdictions present did not identify the “unique/specific issues.” The result of a hybrid system could be an even larger number of sessions of meet & confer/negotiating.

 Some of the positive results of a statewide contract could lead to:

  • A consistent base pay for interpreters, regardless of where located throughout the state. Interpreters who were reluctant to relocate because of impact to pay and/or benefits would not be constrained by these sorts of factors.
  • More flexibility to relocate throughout the state.
  • Consistency and uniformity in benefits and pensions, regardless of where located throughout the state.
  • The “middle man” would be eliminated in interpreter budget considerations during the bargaining process; the state sets the budget and would be the entity with whom we directly negotiate, without the need to have the different judicial court entities involved (and possibly being obstructionist).
  • All parties involved in the negotiating process would save money with a statewide approach.
  • One singular advantage for the Union is that the entire local would be involved in bargaining; there is strength in numbers, and our impact on bargaining would be enhanced by focusing statewide, martialing our membership statewide, and getting results that are statewide. In a nutshell, more leverage.

In conclusion, what are we, both as court interpreters and union members, to understand from all this? Firstly, this is only a beginning that is basically a brainstorming of ideas and opinions; this Interpreter Act Working Group has compiled information to be presented to the Judicial Council, without any specific recommendations, as the group could not come to consensus as to endorsements for any course of action. We should understand that there are some notable differences of perspectives between courts and court interpreters regarding the Working Group’s subject matter, likewise, there are similar gaps in the viewpoints between the varying jurisdictions.

Union member representatives are collaborating with other sectors of certified interpreters to represent our members’ labor and professional interests at the Judicial Council. Moreover, the definitive decision as to how courts function is decided by elected representatives in the legislature, not the Judicial Council. We will have to be vigilant as to where the Judicial Council goes with this information; having a good legislative agenda and coordinated, focused lobbying efforts in the coming years will be key toward guiding Judicial Council policies and musings in a direction that brings meaningful language access to the courts, as well as protect our labor rights and professional tenets.

 In solidarity,

Janet Hudec
Tyler Nguyen
Pedro Ramírez Navas
Angie Birchfield
Michael Ferreira 

 

IAWG summary of work memo.pdf

IAWG_Roster_2018.pdf


[1]California Government Code under Title 8, Chapter 7.5, 71807

[2]California Government Code under Title 8, Chapter 7.5, 71802(c)(2)

[3]California Government Code under Title 8, Chapter 7.5, 71810

[4]A complete list of all participants is attached.

[5]Except for a one-day in person meeting at the Judicial Council offices, all others were telephonic during the lunch hour.

[6]By law the counties of Solano and Ventura are excluded; this was a compromise, as employee interpreters there were already represented by other unions.

 

 

Region 4 Bargaining Update

December 18, 2018 San Diego County

This morning’s negotiations started off with our lead spokesperson, Ed Venegas, addressing a big challenge your Bargaining Committee has been facing throughout these negotiations, which is release time for your Bargaining Team to prepare for the bargaining sessions, this has been and continues to be a challenge throughout these negotiations.  The region is refusing to give the committee paid time off in order to prepare for negotiating a fair and equitable contract. 
 
Ed’s opening statement: 
 
“I can go negative with this but I’m just going to lay out the facts.  Under the MOU, CFI has the ability to request time to put together proposals, analyze them and then present them for consideration. 
This committee has been working very hard and we take this job seriously. We sometimes work late into the evening from early morning. When the requests for time off are rejected or not handled in a timely manner, we then have no time to figure out other alternatives. This then presents other problems. We need to be able to get some kind of workable format. 
 
Monna Rodalouch was the lead spokesperson during this bargaining session and this was her response:
 
“You have gotten 3 paid release days, and we have very little to show for it. We are not inclined to give you more paid days. You can prepare over the phone, or through emails, or on the weekends or evenings, other units have done that” 
 
So far, your Bargaining Committee has presented proposals on 11 articles of the MOU, we presented an economic proposal and are working on VRI, and they consider this very little to show. The courts clearly do not understand that our profession is not like the other units or professions in the court. We are representing members from 5 counties. Not just one. Some of us on the committee travel almost 7 hours in one day just to get to the bargaining sessions or to the caucuses to prepare for negotiations.  Other units are only bargaining on behalf of one county. We have some very important issues to research that include legislation that other units don’t have to deal with. We have civil expansion and VRI, these are very important issues that will have a great impact on our future profession. It is not in the best interest of our profession and our members if we rush through these issues without first making sure that we dot all the “I’s” and cross all the “t’s”. We take our job very seriously and will continue to do so but it’s important that our members are well informed of the challenges we are facing throughout our efforts. 
 
During this session CFI rejected the Region’s proposal on Article 17: Intermittent Interpreters. 
 
The Courts’ proposal was to add language that would terminate an intermittent from their employment if they rejected work from the Court 5 consecutive times. 
 
Your Bargaining Team presented strong arguments on behalf of intermittents. The courts have refused to give them benefits because they claim intermittents are not committed to the courts and yet here they proposal asking for commitment from them with no promise for any benefits in return. 
 
Your Bargaining Team also argued that a lot of intermittent employees are being used full-time with no hopes for a full-time position. We presented an argument that some intermittents are not intermittents because they chose not to be. But rather, because a full-time position is not being offered to them. Even they are being used on a full-time bassis.
 
CFI also presented our economic proposal. 
The following was our proposal:
 
All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a total 26% increase to their base wage over the life of the contract. 12% upon ratification of the contract and 7% each consecutive year. 
 
Intermittent employees shall be paid at step 5 for the duration of the agreement. 
 
Mona, Region’s spokesperson, said, “Can’t say I’m thrilled with this” 
 
Your Bargaining Team presented our arguments to support why we believe this is a fair proposal. We also added that the burden of work caused by civil expansion and VRI as well as the fact that the Governor has authorized millions of dollars for civil expansion supports our wage proposal. 
 
We also indicated that employees from San Diego and Orange County have lost wages due to the retirement offset. While the reverse-pick up in Orange County continues to go up. It will go up to 6.743% in 2019. Add to this the cost of living which continues to go up and is projected to go up some more it is evident that interpreters will then be earning  a pay rate below what is required to survive in these counties.
 
We also informed the Region we are aware they have been willing to pay the independent contractors a higher wage rate while demanding that loyal employees continue doing all the extra work. This includes the added work load coming up with civil expansion and VRI. The courts’ loyalty should be with their employees and not a nonemployee independent contractor.
   
Aritlce 50: Volunteers and Interns
 
During a previous session your Bargaining Committee presented a proposal on Article 50, which was to remove this article from our contract. 
 
 We filed a request for information regarding how may volunteers and/or interns the Courts are using or have used. Their response was that at this time the courts are not using any volunteers or interns. It is your bargaining team’s position that if they aren’t using any interns or volunteers then there is no need to have this article in the contract. They replied that they would like to keep it in for recruitment purposes in order to introduce interns to this career by shadowing with interpreters and improving their skills. 
 
This article continues on the table for further discussion. 
 
Article 36: Workspace and Supplies
 
The Region mentioned this article during the afternoon session to remind us that our proposal on this article had been rejected and continues to be rejected. 
 
It is the Region’s position that there is no space in the courtroom for a chair or desk for interpreters. They indicated that they have offered alternatives such as: to wheel carts into the courtroom by the interpreter or to rope off a section in the courtroom. But, those alternatives have been declined by someone, they didn’t indicate who declined these alternatives. 
 
LouLou Tovar asked, “Isn’t there a requirement to provide ergonomic chairs to all employees including interpreters? Or are interpreters excluded from this requirement?”
 
Mona’s response was that they don’t have that requirement and that they would be willing to make accommodations if there’s a disability. 
 
Article 16: Assignments 
 
The court rejected our proposal to pay employees who are certified/registered in more than one language pair an annual 3% base wage adjustment per each additional certification/registration. 
 
Silvia San Martin argued: You are saving yourself 97% when you pay these interpreters an additional 3% because you don’t have to hire another interpreter and pay 100% of the rate and 3% is too much? Wow! 
 
Your bargaining team has been working hard and will continue to work hard at putting together more proposals to strive towards a righteous contract. 
 
We are putting up a strong fight, but we need ALL of your support to achieve the best contract possible for ALL! Our unity is our strength by presenting a united front before administration, we show our power.
 
Our next bargaining session will be on, January 17, 2019, Location TBD 
 
If you will be participating in the “Watch & Support” by taking time off to observe the negotiations, please request time off today. 
 
The team continues to encourage members to support negotiations by attending the bargaining sessions. We hope to see you there. 
 
A big “THANK YOU” to Shalom, Georgette and Gemma from San Diego for showing your support by sitting in to observe our session and participating in the “Watch & Support” 
 
 
We are in this together. UNITED we BARGAIN… DIVIDED we BEG
 
“In union there is strength. It’s the “U” and “I’ in union that makes us strong” 
 
 
In solidarity, 
 
Region 4, Bargaining Team 
CFI Local 39000, CWA-TNG
 
Maria Benitez
Jackie Ruiz
Silvia San Martin 
LouLou Tovar
Rebeca Vera
Ed Venegas- Spokesperson 


Comments from the "Watch & Support" observers - Georgette James and Shalom Solomon

Hi to our interpreter colleagues!

Shalom Solomon (North County San Diego Court Interpreter) and I (same courthouse and job) both had the opportunity, (much to our chagrin, for the VERY first time), to observe our Region 4 contract negotiations last Tuesday, Dec. 18. at the SD Hall of Justice. We are writing this because we want to give a shout-out to the team of negotiators working on our new contract which will ultimately affect our entire San Diego interpreter region and community.

Shalom and I were humbled and in awe of the immensity of the task and at the huge stacks of binders of previous contracts, current research, etc. that they all lugged in. Several of the negotiators representing  region 4 have done so previously and Ed Venegas, who functioned as spokesperson, has decades of experience in contract negotiations, and as a bilingual, bicultural person he seemed especially tuned into interpreter issues. Silvia San Martín, was equally formidable along with the rest of the negotiating team. 

In the afternoon, when the session truly took off, we especially took notice of how each member of our negotiating team, seamlessly segued from one to the other to elaborate and build upon different points as well as with the ease and command that Ed Venegas showed in handling inquiries and responses from the opposing side. 

Kudos, especially, to our local negotiating representative, Silvia San Martín, who took on this daunting task for our San Diego interpreter community and also for the other members of the Region 4 team who are all pushing hard to bring us home a strong contract!

As a side note, many of our North County Public Defenders, are now sporting red buttons that say “I Support Court Interpreters”. They asked for them! 

Best Wishes!

Georgette James and Shalom Solomon

 

 

The news images and stories that have come out of the recent California wildfires has been the subject much on the minds of everyone in both Northern and Southern California. Wildfires have devastated over 200,000 acres in Northern and Southern California and destroyed thousands of homes. 

During CFI’s CIMCE seminars event of November 17-18, President Bernie Lunzer informed the membership of CWA District 9’s Disaster Relief Fund which is specifically rendering aid to members, and others who are California wildfire victims.

Local 39000 would like to encourage all members to visit the link below to get informed about the scope of the disaster, and to contribute whatever you can to ameliorate the suffering of our members, and others in the communities that have hit by the worst fires in memory.

This site also has information about how to request assistance, should you be a member who has been impacted by the disaster.

This is what Union Strong is all about.
District 9 Disaster Relief Fund Webpage


[https://district9.cwa-union.org/news/disaster-relief-assistance-and-information-for-district-9-wildfire-victims]


 Sisters and Brothers-

 Let's be prepared for the next disaster, please sign-up for our training on Sat Dec 15th, 8:30 am-1 pm, if you are not able to participate, please refer someone to join our Resiliency Team, Thank you: 

I’m following up on the email your received from the President of the LA Fed, Rusty Hicks, regarding our efforts to create a Labor Resiliency Response volunteer team.

 
Now more than ever, with the wildfires surrounding Los Angeles and the State of California, and other disasters knocking on our door - we need your help to train union volunteers to be prepared to assist in the aftermath of a disaster, here locally or anywhere in the country.
 
The objective of our Labor Resiliency Team will be to assist after a major disaster strikes the Greater Los Angeles Area with staffing a shelter, feeding victims, and/or assisting with logistics and operations.
 
Also, we are asking if you would consider providing your union facilities to be used after a major disaster as a location for a shelter, mass feeding and/or logistics and operations.  
 
If you would like to be a part of our Labor Resiliency Response volunteer team, here is how you can help:  
 
1) Please distribute the attached recruitment flyer to your members, asking them to consider participating in our efforts.
 
2) We would like for you to provide us 3 or more members from your union to be part of our Resiliency Labor Team. We plan to provide training on December 15th at the LA Fed, 2130 W. James Wood Blvd, L.A., CA 90006, 8:30 am-1:00 pm.
 
3) Please consider providing your union facilities to be used after a disaster as a shelter, location for mass feeding or logistics operations.    
 
Please complete the information below and forward it to Armando Olivas, at [email protected] or call him at 213-272-1756.
 
Resiliency Response Team Training
 
Name__________________________Union____________________Phone_______________
 
Email address_________________________________________________________________
 
Name__________________________Union____________________Phone_______________
 
Email address_________________________________________________________________
 
Name__________________________Union____________________Phone_______________
 
Email address_________________________________________________________________
 
Union Facilities
 
Yes- We are willing to provide our union facilities for the usage in a emergency situation. We understand that after the building is inspected and accepted by the LA Red Cross, we may be asked to provide the building for shelters, mass feeding and logistics operations. Our facilities are located at:
 
Address_____________________________________________________________________
 
Staff Contact ________________________________________________________________

 

Armando Olivas,
Consultant:

 

United Way of Greater Los Angeles 
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor,
AFL-CIO 213-272-1756
 
<< first < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > last >>

Page 9 of 23