So, recently we told you about the files we’d found on SEIU’s financial management. As we said, considering the volume of information present there, it would take us some time to explore everything. Well, it appears that we’ve had time to find some more interesting tidbits of information in that gigantic pile of financial statements.

As you may remember, last year SEIU announced it was launching a campaign against Sodexo. The union’s official position was that, outraged by gross mismanagement and faults at Sodexo, it wanted “Clean Up Sodexo”. With unabashed statements and brazen declarations about the state of things at Sodexo, the Union meant to stir workers –with mixed results – into demonstrating against the company and pressuring management for a change.

Of course, behind SEIU’s official reasons for starting its smear-campaign laid several, more or less visible, causes. Causes we’ve repeatedly explored in these pages, as it appeared that SEIU had launched the campaign not so much for its alleged humanitarian motives but rather for capitalistic and strategic intents. The union, historically foreign to the catering services workers’ demography wanted to set foot on the market and spur concurring union UNITE-HERE – with whom it shared a history of bitter rivalry. SEIU wanted to expand, more than that, it needed to expand, maintaining membership growth meant increasing fees collected and, in the end, enriching the union.

In order to give some tangibility to its claims against Sodexo, SEIU needed two things: backup data (however legitimate) and larger support. To accomplish the first of these goals, it ordered the realisation of a report on working conditions at Sodexo. The report’s final draft showed up in October 2010, largely fed with interviews obtained “on behalf of SEIU” by some unknown actor. Looking at the financial files, it appears that these interviews were the product of local union Sinaltrainal, who received a hefty $20,000 “organizing” donation from SEIU in October 2010.

Not wanting to take the risk of being too directly associated with the report or, most probably, trying to fill its second goal, SEIU decided to have another organization endorse the report. It sent it directly to the Transafrica Forum, a close partner of the union, who received a $45,000 “organizing” donation in November 2010. The Transafrica Forum diligently took SEIU’s report, changed the title, consistently replaced “SEIU” by “Transafrica Forum” throughout the document, added a few cosmetic touch ups and released it as its own in the beginning of 2011.

Meanwhile, SEIU had, strategically, noticed that one of Sodexo’s largest and most vulnerable contracts were those it entertained with universities. Accordingly it set out to find allies in destabilizing the food caterer’s contract with American Universities. The tactic was good, universities are sensitive to reputation matters and students are more prone on demonstrating than workers holding onto their jobs. So the SEIU went with USAS, a student’s organization specialized in large-scale anti-corporate campaigns which had already proven its worth in the past.

In February 2010, SEIU made two $25,000 direct “contributions” to USAS, totalling a comfy $50,000 to provide it with some material support in its campaign. In March 2010, SEIU renewed those same “contributions”, again for a nice $50,000 total, bringing the sum USAS received for its year campaigning against Sodexo to $100,000. Something that shakes quite a bit our belief in the ingenuity of USAS’ engagement in the campaign.

While SEIU has yet to succeed in its coercive move to force its recognition as a Sodexo union and receive the membership fees it is so ardently yearning for, the union certainly prove it would spare no expenses in this particular campaign. What remains to be known is, if SEIU ever reaches its goal, what is there to be gained for workers?

[Updated: the files are now directly accessible here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53270593/SEIU-2010-LM-2 ]

Find more at Campains Report!