Apr 1, 1998
CWA Friends in Office Offer Real ‘Paycheck Protection’When CWA goes to City Hall, to the State Legislature or to Congress, it’s about jobs. Maybe it’s to fight unionbusters who have put workers on the street. Maybe it’s to block the formation of a non-union monopoly that would cost thousands of telecommunications and media jobs. Maybe it’s to win a first contract, or to set limits on forced overtime. All these are battles fought right here in California by CWA members and by public officials elected with their help. That’s why we cannot allow the passage of Proposition 226.
Last summer CWA locals around the state mobilized along with UPTE/CWA Local 9119 to win a first contract for 4,000 technical employees of the University of California. Holding rallies on campus is one thing. Being able to exert financial pressure is quite another. District 9 Vice President Tony Bixler, staff and local officers were able to turn to friends of CWA in the State Legislature, Congress; even the lieutenant governor. Recently retired congressman Ron Dellums solicited support from congressional colleagues. Since UC is heavily dependent upon state and federal funds, CWA’s lobbying effort carried the day. Now the University Professional and Technical Employees are bargaining for 3,800 researchers on all nine UC campuses, and for 2,000 health care professionals at UC medical centers.
Eighty-one members of the Congress, including House Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich.), in September, signed a petition urging Sprint Corp. to pay more than $12 million in back salaries and to rehire 177 wrongfully terminated employees, as ordered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The effort was spearheaded by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), who has consistently helped keep alive the fight of 177 mostly Latina workers, fired from Sprint’s La Conexion Familiar Spanish-language telemarketing facility in San Francisco on July 14, 1994. The workers were scheduled to vote the following week to join CWA. Sprint was found guilty in 1996 by the National Labor Relations Board of more than 50 labor law violations, including intimidation, coercion, and illegal threats of a shutdown, prior to closing its abrupt closing of the facility. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals in November overturned the NLRB decision, the high visibility given the fight by Lantos, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and other political friends of CWA helped the labor movement hold unionbusters at bay for its four year duration.
If you really want to protect your paycheck, vote “no” on Proposition 226.
National Worker Issues
On the national scene, let’s look at the voting records of the 34 senators who have endorsed a national “paycheck protection” scheme similar to Prop 226. Of Senate sponsors, all 34 have voted to:
- Cut Medicare, Medicaid and
student loans. - Allow employers to substitute “comp time” for overtime pay.
- Allow companies to pay some workers less than the minimum wage.
- Stop the Clinton administration from barring companies that permanently replace striking workers from federal contracts.
Remember the agenda of the 1994 Congress? A national-right-to-work law . . . drastic cutbacks in OSHA . . . allowing corporations to raid workers’ pensions . . . getting rid of the 40-hour workweek . . . reclassifying millions of ordinary workers as “independent contractors” who would not be eligible for pensions, overtime, health insurance or other benefits? These measures were stopped by the political voice of millions of working Americans, speaking through their unions. We’ve come too far to let our voices be silenced.
The programs and protections won by America’s unions benefit all working families — and we’re the only organization that consistently speaks out on behalf of all working people. And that is what’s bugging the supporters of Prop 226. These corporate backers and their right-wing supporters don’t want voters to know what they really support — from backing corporate raids of workers’ pensions to drastic cuts in Medicare and education to an end to the 40-hour workweek. But that’s why working people must keep their political voice. That’s why we’re voting no on Prop 226.
