Sign up for the lastest information from the IBEW!

Although organized labor went to the polls in droves to elect Al Gore and Joe Lieberman (friends of working families), a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed victory to the Bush/Cheney ticket. We now must face the consequences: presidential and congressional actions which could seriously jeopardize labors hard-won victories on behalf of working people.

In 1994 Republican legislators gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. That new legislative majority proposed a blueprint, called the Contract With America, that mandated Republican representatives to propose a variety of bills during the first 100 days of the 104th Congress (which began January 4, 1995). The proposals included a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, a line-item veto, welfare reform, various tax-reform measures, Social Security changes and term limits for legislative service.

Many proposals of this Contract With America became law, whether for the ultimate good of the majority of Americans or not. But, since 1995, the House and Senate have dealt with many other issues that have had (or would have) enormous economic and social implications for working people, especially union members. During its last session (the 106th), Congress chose to let most major labor issues lie dormant. But, with a Republican president, a closely matched House and an evenly divided Senate, the IBEW envisions many of these issues resurfacing during the 107th Congress, which convened January 3, 2001.

President George W. Bush campaigned on one very important issue to union members, so-called paycheck protection, as part of his campaign-finance reform proposals. More correctly termed paycheck deception, these proposals would place restrictions on unions ability to provide political education and information to their members. If enacted, these laws would require unions to request permission from their members every time the union needs to lobby on laws that affect members ability to make a livinglaws on health care, Social Security, prevailing wages, overtime or safety. Such burdensome restrictions and requirements are not placed on any other organization in the United States. (IBEW Journal, April 1998, pp. 1218; July/August 1998, pp. 2, 3, 24-27).

Bush launched his anti-worker assault in February by issuing four executive orders (which require no consultation with or approval by Congress). The executive orders effectively bar project labor agreements on federally funded construction projects, require government contractors to post notices telling employees they cannot be required to join a union and may object to paying the portion of agency fees unrelated to collective bargaining, end job-security protections for employees of service contractors in federal buildings, and abolish federal labor-management partnerships. These executive orders govern activities only within the federal government. However, we expect legislation to be proposed in Congress, and at the state level, that would also try to undermine workers rights in the private sector.

What other anti-worker legislation might Bush advocate?

We Must Be Vigilant

It appears that, where protective labor legislation is concerned, the past will always be prologue. That is, we must continue to protect the workers rights we have gained over the yearsor they will be snatched from us. We dont want workers in the 21st century living the worklives of their ancestors of the 19th and early 20th centurieslow wages, no benefits, dangerous and unhealthy working conditions, a poor standard of living and the shortening of lives that are inevitable in those conditions.

The IBEW will be vigilant in not only protecting the hard-won rights of its members and all workers, but will continue to fight for legislation that improves the working conditions and standard of living for all workers, everywhere. To stay abreast of Congresss activitiesand the IBEWs legislative initiatives and responses check the Congressional Action Center.

Davis-Bacon Act

At every opportunity, Republicans attempt to weaken or repeal this act, which provides for payment to workers on federally funded construction projects of what the Department of Labor determines are the local prevailing wages and fringe benefits for that area. Bushs administration is expected to continue this assault on Davis Bacon. In fact, Vice President Cheney voted at least six times to weaken Davis-Bacon when he served in the House.

Service Contract Act

Congress has been trying for several years to repeal this act, which requires companies under service contracts with the federal government to pay their covered employees the local prevailing wage as determined by the DOL in its wage surveys for such work in specific areas of the United States. More than 6,500 IBEW members are covered under this act. An example of this type of work is electronic equipment operation and maintenance at federal government facilities.

Fair Labor Standards Act

So-called labor-law reformers attack provisions of this act frequently, especially its 40-hour workweek and overtime protections. One bill proposed in the 104th Congress would have created a voluntary 160-hour work period before overtime kicked in. Employers would have been able to force employees to work 20 straight eight-hour days before payment of overtime, or 70 hours one week, 50 the next, 40 a third week, and then tell employees to take a week off. House members back then also wanted to repeal the FLSA for the public sector and circumvent the 40-hour workweek to create employee flexibility. We can expect these reforms to be proposed again.

House legislation proposed to allow a citation of violation only after a death or injury, allow a worker to file a complaint with OSHA only after notifying the employer, and eliminate the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Both houses of Congress sought to change OSHA procedure from inspections and citations to consultation. The House also proposed OSHA enforcement funding cuts that would have resulted in a 50 percent staff reduction and bill riders to stop some standard-setting activity, particularly for ergonomics. Representative Cass Ballenger (R-NC) proposed reform- that would also exempt more companies from inspections; reduce penalties for serious health and safety violations; and permit a third party to certify a workplace as safe, endangering genuine enforcement.

The TEAM Act

The TEAM Act attempted to rewrite Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects workers against managements turn-of-the-century, anti-labor practice of establishing company unions. Under the guise of fostering teamwork and empowering employees, the bill would have permitted sham unions controlled by the company. As endorsed by defeated Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole in 1996, the bill would have given big business a new power that has been denied them for 60 yearsthe right to establish and control the labor organizations that will represent their employees. (Emphasis added.) Bushs approval of this type of legislation might be inferred from his proud anti-union assertion: Texas is a right-to-work state, with low unionization of the work force.

Other proposals that have appeared since 1995 would have cut enforcement of minimum wage, child labor and sweatshop laws; cut pension oversight; and allowed corporations to raid pension funds up to 125 percent of their liability and use the money for any reason. Bush opposed increasing the minimum wage and believes states should be able to opt out of minimum-wage laws. While campaigning for governor of Texas, he promised to protect teachers pensions; but he signed into law the largest-ever reduction in Texas teacher pension funding. In 1997 he tried to raid the Texas teachers retirement fund again to pay for a tax cut benefiting mainly the wealthy.

Related Articles