A Lousy Half-Hundred

What hath President Bush wrought in his opening months in office? From a union standpoint, nothing but anti-labor decisions and troubling prospects.

By Sally Tyler

Like the notorious First 100 Days of the Newt Gingrich-led 104th Congress, the early months of the George W. Bush administration have been marked by an anti-working family agenda. But where Gingrich and his Contract on America cohorts loudly announced their intentions of dismantling pro-worker gains, the public rhetoric from Bush has been about bi-partisanship, consensus and cooperation. His actions, however, have been swift, severe and secretive.

The first sign of Bush’s stealth assault on working families came a mere two weeks after he took office. Using a little-known federal provision, and without any public notice or comment, he blocked a regulation designed to ensure that federal contracts are awarded to responsible companies, not chronic lawbreakers.

That move set the tone for the first months of the administration. It not only declared the President’s anti-labor agenda but also established a mode of operation in which he assaults pro-worker protections while attempting to avoid the congressional or public deliberation such policy changes deserve.

EXECUTIVE FIAT. There soon followed a series of troubling executive orders that:

• Bar labor peace agreements on federally funded construction projects that assure union crafts people will be employed and disputes will be settled without work stoppages.
• Require government contractors to post notices encouraging employees not to become union members.
• End job-retention protections that now cover service-contract employees in federal buildings when the government switches contractors.
• Abolish cooperative labor/management arrangements that involve federal agencies and hundreds of thousands of unionized federal workers.

Those orders came only four days after the new Sec. of Labor Elaine Chao’s appearance before the AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting, where she pledged to work closely with unions. Her boss’s actions gave her words a hollow ring and cast a pall of skepticism over what many union leaders had hoped would be a productive relationship with the incoming secretary.

WAR IF NECESSARY. Reaction in the labor community to the executive orders was strong. "Are we surprised that a President essentially appointed to office by the Supreme Court has no respect for workplace democracy?" asks Glen Middleton, executive director of Maryland Council 67 and AFSCME International vice president for the Capital District. "Not at all. The blood, sweat and sometimes very lives of American workers went into establishing these rights and protections, and they won’t be given up without a fight. We’d rather be working in partnership with this administration. But if Bush wants war, we can do that."

The next labor target to enter Bush’s crosshairs was the ergonomics standard. This landmark Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule was 10 years in the making, and the Clinton administration had only re-cently put it into effect.

Ergonomic injuries and illnesses are the nation’s biggest workplace safety and health problem; each year, they cause 1.6 million musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), such as chronic lower back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. Even while the Bush administration was moving to rescind this vital protection, the National Academy of Sciences released a study finding that the cost of lost wages and productivity caused by MSDs was $50 billion annually.

$9 FOR $1. "I am furious," says Terry Clark, a safety inspector for the state of Wisconsin and a member of Local 333 (Council 24). "This is a vicious assault on working people. They are sticking it to us as fast and as hard as they can. They claim it’s too expensive to fix these ergonomic problems, but the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has developed studies showing that for every dollar spent on safety, you get a $9 return in productivity and savings. You can’t do better than that in any stock market."

Yet business has apparently decided to be penny wise. It was the National Association of Manufacturers and other Big Business contributors to Bush’s campaign that made repeal of the ergonomics standard their number-one priority. Nullification was rushed through Congress without a hearing. Many observers see his action against the standard — the first to be nullified in OSHA’s 30-year history — as a prompt political payoff.

The demolition of these ergonomics protections leaves affected workers wondering what will happen now.

"I use the computer every day to enter data for patient visits," says Sue Myhre, a nurse practitioner at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and a member of Hawaii Government Employees Association/AFSCME Local 152. "My office was looking at remodeling because we don’t have the proper set-up. I have to lean way too far over to type, and my shoulders are always tense from the way I have to use the keyboard. Now that the standard is reversed, it doesn’t give the employers any incentive to remodel this place. Nothing is going to change."

GANG OF FIVE. In the same spirit as Bush’s anti-worker actions was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision denying the rights of disabled state employees to sue their employers on charges of employment discrimination. The same five justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O’Connor) who voted to abruptly end the Florida vote recount and make George W. Bush President also formed the majority in this decision. Many labor supporters fear that it could signal a succession of high court decisions hostile to unions.

"I wish that one of the Supreme Court justices could come down here and try to get into any buildings or cross the street in a wheelchair," says Minnesotan Charlene Blowers, a Local 2566 (Council 65) member who has polio. "If our government won’t make the workplace accessible, how can we make a private employer do it? Let these justices roll a mile in our chairs."

All of these anti-worker developments occurred against the backdrop of the highly publicized Bush tax cut plan. Administration officials claim the tax package will cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, but the public interest group Citizens for Tax Justice thinks the cost will be at least $2.6 trillion. The higher figure would absorb the entire budget surplus and severely impact many essential programs.

The Bush tax cut is based on controversial speculations that the economy will continue to thrive for another 10 years. Most leading economic forecasters agree that it is virtually impossible to accurately project economic conditions so many years in advance.

BULLDOZER LEGISLATION. Bush forced a congressional vote on his tax cut before issuing a real budget with specific line items to indicate which programs will be reduced or eliminated to pay for the cut. At this writing, it had passed the House but was expected to meet strong resistance in the Senate, where even some Bush allies had been angered by the President’s "legislation by bulldozer" approach.

Although much about the Bush tax plan is based on speculation, what’s already known is that the plan would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Taxpayers in the top 10 percent income bracket would receive 60 percent of the benefits, while the lowest 60 percent would receive less than 13 percent of the bounty — and would gain on average only $256.

Even that modest saving could come at quite a cost. The vague budget outline indicates significant reductions in needed health and education programs, including Head Start. This pre-budget document also encourages "charitable choice," or government funding of faith-based initiatives, which could promote further privatization of public services.

Although Bush’s budget priorities have not yet been clarified, the policy priorities of the American people remain the same: greater access for all to affordable health care, strengthening public education, shoring up Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, easing the burden on working families and providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors.

The Bush administration will have many opportunities to address these imperatives, including the newly introduced Fair Minimum Wage Act, the bi-partisan Patients’ Bill of Rights, legislation on new school construction and the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Will the President collaborate with labor to pursue such initiatives and — in the process — tend to the needs of the majority of Americans? Although his first Half-Hundred Days were far from encouraging, AFSCME and its allies will not slow their efforts to point him down the right path.