Dissension in the Ranks: LA-Area Union Workers Call Out Local 11

A shocking document revealing internal strife and discontent at Local 11 was leaked to a local political blog in California this week. 

The memo calls out the union and its leadership for a series of failings and identifies its authors as “labor leaders, elected officials, and community leaders.” For this longtime union watchdog, the memo reads as a synopsis of our years of research into Local 11’s inner workings.  

The memo describes a pattern of alleged racial discrimination and marginalization at Local 11: 

“Instead, Black staff members began leaving-some pushed out, some choosing to walk away from what they described as an increasingly hostile, racially exclusionary environment. Today, the near-absence of Black staff in an organization that claims to speak for low-wage workers across a multiracial region raises a painful question: Whose voices count?”

As Eyes on 11 has reported, Local 11 co-president Ada Briceño has a history of age and race discrimination. Before her time at Local 11, Briceño was the president of UNITE HERE Local 681. Under her leadership, the union was forced to pay almost $1 million in damages and fees in an age and racial discrimination lawsuit. 

The memo also calls out Local 11 for giving its leadership pay raises during the pandemic: 

“During the pandemic, hospitality and food service workers across Southern California faced mass layoffs, furloughs, and the insecurity of not knowing when-or if-their jobs would return. In the same period, compensation for Local 11’s top leaders rose.”

This allegation is confirmed by a report conducted by Eyes on 11, which found that the union’s three co-presidents maintained and later expanded their personal salaries at the union during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period. At the same time, the union allegedly pressured out-of-work members to pay dues. 

The memo also notes that “public filings and watchdog reviews show that relatives of top officers received union payments or staff salaries that increased through the pandemic and recovery period.” Eyes on 11 has reported extensively on nepotism at Local 11, which has exposed multiple relatives of union leadership who draw salaries or contracts from the union. 

The memo also decries the union’s seemingly arbitrary dues increases: 

“Members deserve to know why they are being asked to pay more and how the additional money will be used. Local 11 encouraged members to support dues increases during and after the pandemic; top-end dues reportedly moved from the $80 to the $90 per month range across 2022-2023, and an increase to $100 in 2025. Initiation fees have also climbed.”

Eyes on 11 has long called out the union for raising dues as the hotel industry that employs the majority of its members struggled to recover post-pandemic. Even now, the union has pushed for unprecedented wage hikes that threaten the very industry its members rely on. 

Other criticisms of the union include: 

• Disruptive and harassing protests at hotels involving drums and noisemakers (We’ve written about how Local 11’s pickets have led to a flood of poor Yelp and Trip Advisor reviews, putting hotel worker jobs at risk) 
• Picketing Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson 
• Vindictive political retaliation against other generally pro-labor politicians who break with Local 11’s priorities

The memo ends with a series of recommendations for the union, which include: An independent investigation of racial discrimination at Local 11, an interactive tool for members that shows an honest and complete picture of the local’s spending, and a set of new, more stringent rules about disruptive picketing. 

The memo specifically recommends that a strike vote related to the 2028 Olympics have a “verified majority participation of impacted bargaining units,” a “hardship fund” in place for impacted workers, and a “cross-union ratification vote.” These strict demands suggest past strikes might not have truly been supported by a majority of workers. The memo may be suggesting that previous high approvals for strike authorizations were coerced, or only participated in by a small, militant subset of the union’s membership.  

In any case, these suggestions sound like a good start. 

Right now it’s unclear exactly which local labor, political, and community leaders are behind this message, but it’s good to know we’re not the only ones keeping an eye on Local 11.