Poll: What does Sherles v. SEIU Local 1000 mean?
12/20/2013 9:46 AM
12/20/2013 9:47 AM
You’ve read the column and maybe even perused the court records in the sexual harassment lawsuit state worker Mechelle Sherles brought against her union, SEIU Local 1000. You know the judge in the case ruled that Sherles couldn’t hold the local responsible as her employer because, as a state worker on union paid leave, she wasn’t a union employee.
Now you can take our poll and express your thoughts about the case in the comments section below (if you’re certified to use The Bee’s system), or jump over to The State Worker community Facebook page and leave a few thoughts.
About This BlogJon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at email@example.com or 916-321-1043. Twitter: @TheStateWorker.
Join the Discussion
The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.