President's Column - DeLay and Big Business

Well, we are at war and our family members and friends are in "harm's way.” Federal employees can expect even bigger assaults on their rights, benefits and jobs - all in the name of Homeland Security or the War on Iraq. 170,000 of us have already lost our collective bargaining rights, and maybe our Civil Service Rights. We are contracted out and those of us who remain will probably be asked to take pay cut. Sacrifices always start at the lowest level.

The Majority Leader of the House, Representative Tom DeLay, sent out a fund raising letter for the National Right to Work Foundation. In it he blasted the American Labor Movement, its leaders and members, for being unpatriotic and "trying to expand their power" at the expense of homeland security and troops overseas.” His letter blasted unions for having strikes for working conditions, wages and other issues at Defense Plants and harangued on how Democratic Senators attempted to "hand over operational control of the Homeland Security Department to Big Labor Bosses.

While their may have been strikes at defense plants, no vital war materials were at risk. What he failed to mention was how Defense Contractors, and related industries, were overcharging the federal government - making millions of dollars, while employing tax dodging tactics in foreign countries. His harangue over the Homeland Security Department was not factually correct because all AFGE wanted was to maintain the collective bargaining rights of those employees, enjoyed in their former agencies, going into the new department. Collective Bargaining Rights have been enjoyed for many years throughout the declared and non-declared wars without problems either to homeland defense or to the troops in the field.

The truth is that a long and illustrious list of union members, including members of Local 644, have served their country in war and peace since the first World War. The further truth is that private industry has exploited all the war efforts since the Civil War, maybe even the Revolutionary War, and overcharged the Federal government to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. So why is it unpatriotic to fight for decent wages and working conditions during a "war", but not for contractors to overcharge the government for needed war materials?

A union representative from Local 644 who flew 130 combat missions in Vietnam asked me if Representative DeLay had served in the military, and if he did, was he in combat? I don't know and I would not ask. I would say to Rep. DeLay, "shame on you for besmirching the good name of the thousands of union members and leaders who served their country and are now serving in the reserves who have been called to duty.

Local 644 joins with the millions of other union members who support our troops, no matter how we might feel about the mission. Union members and federal employees have sacrificed and served both in war and peace and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

I am outraged at Representative DeLay's letter and the sentiment behind it and believe he owes the labor movement an apology. He has every right to raise money to fight unions, but not to call us unpatriotic for defending our rights. He may favor Big Business instead of small labor, but that does not give him the right to criticize our patriotism!

President's Column - Congress to pay off the Corporate America

It is a brand-new year, 2003, and the Homeland Security Department is up and running? Well, it’s a thought in someone's mind. No one is sure when it will be a reality and what impact the new department will have on the 170,000 employees and their collective bargaining rights. But what we are dead sure about is what happens to the "patriotic" corporations who will do business with the government. I put that into quotes, because in the passing of the legislation, the Wellstone Amendment was eliminated. This was the amendment voted on by 318 members of the House that would have barred corporations that move to offshore tax shelters like Bermuda from getting federal government contracts related to homeland security. This was eliminated in the last ditch efforts of the Congress to pay off the Corporate America's large campaign donations.

This is tax dodging at its best, and not a bit patriotic. The U.S. Treasury estimates that we lose $70 to 400 billion each year from American Corporations taking advantage of offshore tax shelters. And these resources are needed to pay for the government and to pay for homeland security. For example, Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire, now of avoids paying $400 million a year in U. S. taxes by setting up a shell headquarters offshore but was awarded $182 million in lucrative defense and homeland security related contracts in 2001 alone. If Tyco had paid its tax bill, Congress could have easily paid for 400 explosive detection systems, which are badly needed to protect U. S. travelers at airports around the nation.

Ingersoll Rand, formerly of New Jersey, now also in Bermuda earned as much last year in U.S. defense and homeland security contracts as it avoids in U. S. taxes by renting a mailbox. These taxes could have easily funded the proposed Cyberspace Warning Intelligence Network estimated to cost $30 million, or could buy 400,000 gas masks for American citizens.

Another amendment that eases the burden on American corporations is the one endorsed and enacted by the new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. It exempts the Eli Lilly company from lawsuits by parents who believe the company's vaccines may have caused their children's autism. How the defense of collective bargaining rights for Federal workers was considered unpatriotic, yet corporate tax dodging is not, escapes my comprehension. These amendments are in the new bill, the agency is not up and running, about 55,000 federal workers may have lost their collective bargaining rights and the country is no safer now than September 10, 2001. All this was done in the name of patriotism and for a secure homeland.