Finally, the National Association of Government Employees (SEIU) has responded to the story I posted last week reporting that its affiliate, the International Association of EMTS and Paramedics (IAEP/SEIU), has been sending out letters to doctors, endorsing Pfizer’s blockbuster drug Lipitor.

Lipitor, like other statins, has been getting some bad publicity of late (see “The Cholesterol Con”) and apparently someone decided Lipitor needed a boost.

Today, I learned that someone who signed himself “anonymous” had replied to my post on Health Care Renewal, where Dr. Roy Poses, the blog’s editor, had cross-posted my SEIU piece. Here’s the response:

SEIU Does Not Endorse Lipitor or Any Other Product (Full disclosure—I work for SEIU.) If Ms. Mahar had bothered to contact us, she would have learned that as a matter of policy, SEIU does not endorse products. Official Statement from SEIU: Recently, a letter appearing to endorse a well-known pharmaceutical was circulated by the International Association of EMTS and Paramedics, an affiliate of the National Association of Government Employees (IAEP/SEIU).SEIU does not endorse products. The letter was generated by a Local Union staff member unfamiliar with SEIU’s policy against any product endorsement. Upon learning of the letter, the Local disavowed a relationship with the product in keeping with the union’s policy.

The 1.9 million member Service Employees International
Union is united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and
the services they provide and dedicated to improving the lives of
workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society.
SEIU members are winning better wages, health care, and more secure
jobs for our communities, while uniting their strength with their
counterparts around the world to help ensure that workers, not just
corporations and CEOs, benefit from today’s global economy.

I checked my original post on HealthBeat, and, sure enough, found a very similar comment there.

I did, of course, contact IAEP, as described in my original post, where
I give the names of the people I reached. For someone who signs
himself/herself  “anonymous” to suggest otherwise seems less than
convincing.

I might not have paid too much attention to these nameless replies—but then I took a look at AlterNet,
which also had cross-posted the original Health Beat piece about
IAEP/SEIU’s endorsement of Lipitor. There I found this statement by
Andy Stern, president of SEIU:

"Recently, a letter appearing to endorse a well-known
pharmaceutical was circulated by the International Association of EMTS
and Paramedics, an affiliate of the National Association of Government
Employees (IAEP/SEIU).

"The letter was generated by a Local Union staff member unfamiliar with
SEIU’s clear policies against product endorsement. The Local has ended
their relationship with the product. SEIU does not endorse products.”
(Someone who identified herself as “Michelle Ringuette, SEIU” posted
Stern’s statement on AlterNet.)

In this reply, you’ll notice that no one is suggesting that I didn’t
contact the union.  Instead, Stern’s response boils down to a single
argument: Matthew Levy, the director of IAEP who signed the letter to
the doctors, was merely a “local union staff member” unfamiliar with
SEIU’s clear policies about endorsement.

This doesn’t quite square with what IAEP’s national communications
director told me. She confirmed that Levy is “director” of the
organization—and that’s how he signed his name on the Lipitor letter,
which was written on IAEP/SEIU letterhead.  But maybe Matthew Levy is
new to the organization and just wasn’t aware that he isn’t supposed to
write letters saying that the “IAEP leadership stands behind LIPITOR as
the lipid-lowering agent of choice”?

I decided to find out a little more about Levy. Here is what I
discovered:  he has been with the union since 2001. He began as a lowly
“business rep,” but by 2003, he had been promoted to the executive
board, and in the years that followed, “unionfact.com” reveals that his career flourished:

Matthew Levy Salary Information
Year     Salary      % Raise     Title
2006     $ 66,339     20.6%      Representative
2004     $ 55,000     19.5%      Executive Board
2003     $ 46,023     619.1%      Executive Board

At the end of 2006, Union Facts lists Levy
as one of the Top 10  leaders of the National Association of Government
Employees SEIU (NAGE).  By then his salary had soared to $92, 723.
(NOTE: David Holway is the national president of IAEP, and these are
IAEP’s top  officers.)

Leadership
Top 10 International NAGE Leaders & Staff (by Salary)

Name                    Title                          Total Compensation
David Holway         National President           $ 233,097

Richard Barry, Jr   General Counsel               $ 137,177

Barbara Osgood     Nat’l Exec Vice President  $ 133,194

Paul Birks              National Vice President    $ 132,926

James Farley         Nat’l Exec Vice President  $ 130,961

Charles Warren     Organizing                       $ 111,028

David Bernard       Representative                $ 110,787

Joseph Monahan   Attorney                           $ 93,751

James Hartman    Finance                            $ 93,550

Matthew Levy      Representative                  $ 92,723

Apparently Levy was promoted from “Representative” to “Director”
sometime in the last year. I have no idea what his salary is now.

Finally, while looking at Stern’s reply to my post on Alternet, I
couldn’t help but notice a large ad right next to the post, publicizing
“a new grassroots, netroots blog, SEIUVoice.org.”

When I clicked on the ad, I discovered that www.seiuvoice.org is a
website “created by members of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West
(UHW) to provide a source of information to the public about our
efforts to get our national union, SEIU, back on the right path.”

Doing a little more research, I learned more about some of the
controversies that have been plaguing the union. “In late April,” for
instance, “the San Francisco Weekly reported that SEIU’s California
lobbying organization, the California State Council of Service
Employees, had worked with for-profit nursing home chains to
successfully block a ‘Nursing Home Residents Bill of Rights.’ Among
other things, this bill would have increased enforcement of California
laws mandating staffing levels in nursing homes.”

I guess I’m not the only one who thinks that there is something odd
going on at IAEP/SEIU.  I welcome comments and e-mails from other IAEP
or SEIU members.