The Women’s Agenda

By William Lucy

Over the years, I have witnessed the development of many economic and social trends in the United States. One current trend: The range of issues women identify as priorities is driving the campaign agenda of the 2000 elections.

This development is a direct result of women’s increased employment outside the home in recent decades. They now comprise roughly half of the American workforce, and that phenomenon is reflected in the new political agenda.

What makes this exciting for AFSCME, and what should come as no surprise to anyone who ever listens to women, is that the issues women identify as priorities strongly benefit working families.

It’s simple: The women’s agenda is a working families’ agenda, and that makes it a union agenda.

But it has not always been this way. When unions were emerging as powerful entities in the early 1900s, our issues stopped at the workplace door. We concentrated on the number of hours worked, wages received and safety conditions.

And through our dedicated focus, we were able to achieve such victories as a 40-hour workweek, the first federal minimum wage and the establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

While still addressing these core workplace issues, unions have realized that the concerns of working families do not stop at the factory door. For that, we have our union sisters to thank.

Women have always identified a broad range of issues as vital to themselves and their families — from access to health care and quality education to retirement programs. If unions are to meet the needs of our women members (some 52 percent of AFSCME membership), we must address these issues in a comprehensive framework, rather than as isolated areas of interest.

In talking to my union sisters, it always strikes me that they see issues in a very interconnected manner. I also find that union women generally relate their political positions to real-life experiences, and this in turn strengthens their commitment. Our statistics show that women hold about 46 percent of our leadership positions.

After all, if you’re not getting fair pay, how can you afford the quality child care that allows you peace of mind at work?

And what about women who are caught in the so-called sandwich generation, caring for an aging parent while they still have a school-aged child at home? You better believe they have strong views on Social Security/ Medicare, education and flexible time at work to accommodate family demands.

It is this broad spectrum of issues that will decide this year’s Presidential election. There are clear differences in the candidates’ positions and records. Here are two:

• Education — Gore supports investing $115 billion to decrease class size, hire new teachers and make preschool available to all. Bush has ridiculed plans to hire new teachers; while under his tenure as governor, Texas ranks 47th in reading skills.
• Health Care — Gore fought for a Patients’ Bill of Rights with an OB/GYN primary-physician option and the right to sue HMOs. Bush supported a weak Patients’ Bill of Rights without the OB/GYN option and without the right to sue HMOs.

The changing profile of women in the workforce is also illuminating new frontiers for union activism.

In 1997, for example, women headed 12.8-million families, up from 5.6 million in 1970. Clearly, we must work to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to include paid leave.

Women currently comprise 55 percent of workers paid by temporary agencies and 77 percent of part-time workers. We therefore need to extend health benefits to part-time and contingent workers.

Even as women point the way to where we need to go, it is union women’s dedicated, grassroots organizing and political activism that will help get us there.

So I can declare wholeheartedly: If it’s a women’s issue, it’s an AFSCME issue too.