There are two subjects I need to comment on this month. The first seems to be a case of “just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, it does.” I am referring to the change in health care administrators for Qwest. Sedgewick Company previously used to administer Labor and Industry claims but is now retained to manage all health care cases for the Company. If you had any occasion to deal with this company in the past, you know how difficult they are to work with. Make no mistake, they are not here for your benefit: their goal is to do whatever it takes to save the company money, therefore justifying the contract they have with Qwest.
It is important that whenever you access your health care that you follow all of the instructions, but also it is important that you protect yourself in the following ways: document any and all conversations that you have with Sedgewick; ask for the name of the person with whom you are speaking; get a phone number if possible; keep a record of the conversation and what questions were asked; refer them to your attending physician when appropriate; don’t sign unreasonable release forms without checking with Mike Nord or myself; do make sure to see a physician in the proper time frame to insure that the benefit is not in jeopardy; check with payroll through your supervisor to ensure that proper pay treatment is coded to avoid either shortage or overpayment, both of which can be difficult to resolve.
Remember, the person on the other end of the line is not there for your benefit; they are the employee of a vendor serving Qwest, their interest is in protecting the contract that they are employed under, not in making sure that you are getting good quality healthcare. Rely on your doctor and his advice but make sure he understands what difficulties this company can cause if the paper is not completed and in a timely manner.
We have had difficulties dealing with Sedgewick in the past, and since taking over the administration of the health care system, we have seen their attempt to overreach with intrusive questions on release forms and aggressive questioning of employees on disability. They will threaten denial of benefits for noncompliance as they see fit. If you experience any trouble with your health care, contact Mike Nord or myself as soon as possible: it is easier to resolve issues when we have all of the facts before action is taken by the company.
The second topic for the month is Techload, which primarily affects the IM and Cable Maintenance work groups, although some of the issues are similar for other organizations. We recommend that all employees comply with all company instructions relating to their job function. Failure to do so could constitute insubordination and result in disciplinary action being taken by the company.
The absolute exceptions are when there is a safety or legal reason for non-compliance. Some of you a re being loaded through Techload at unreasonable times during your shift, late drop-ins are added without consideration for the normal end of your shift and whether or not you choose to work overtime. Our position is this: your shift ends at a certain time.
You are not required to work overtime to make commitments the company has given if the system has given you work that you can not complete before the end of your shift contact your boss, advise him that you can’t work overtime to complete the work given to you; do this as early as possible and make it clear that you have other commitments, although it is not required that you tell what those commitments are. You are not required to tell the boss or the LRAC first in the morning that you want off on time; they do not own you or your time after the end of your scheduled shift. If they want to change your shift there is a procedure to do so but it requires prior notification; it is not a last minute arbitrary decision made by your manager.
If you have taken these steps and your manager still insists that you finish the work that was loaded to you, do so and call your steward. We will make an initial attempt to resolve the problem and then, if necessary, we will grieve the order. The policy of the union is and always has been “work now and grieve later.” Don’t risk insubordination and discipline over the issue; we will seek legal remedy though the proper procedures as outlined in the bargaining agreement.
Some managers will seek to curry favor with you with statements like “If I do this for you what do I get in the future?” or “Will you be willing to work next time I need someone to pick up a late one?” My answer would be “No, I am living up to the collective bargaining agreement. Are you?” There isn’t any reason you should be asked to do something extra in order for the company to live up to their obligations under the contract. When you make a deal for you or for this one time it makes it hard to prevent his type of abuse from happening again. Let’s put a stop to this practice now and for the future.
March 2, 2001
The Honorable ________
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator ________:
On behalf of the 740,000 members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I write to express my opposition to President Bush’s irresponsible tax cut proposal.
CWA supports a fiscal policy that uses federal budget surpluses to invest in America’s needs and to provide fairly shared and immediate tax relief. President Bush’s massive tax cut proposal fails on both counts. It provides a windfall to the rich, squanders an historic opportunity to use the surplus to meet America’s needs, and is fiscally irresponsible.
President Bush's tax cut plan will transfer most of the surplus to America’s wealthiest individuals. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, based on 2001 income levels, the Bush plan when fully phased-in would provide an average $54,500 in annual tax relief to the richest one percent of taxpayers, compared to an average $256 annual tax relief to the lowest 60 percent of taxpayers. A full 45 percent of the income tax relief under the Bush plan would go to the richest one percent of taxpayers. More than a quarter of American families, including a third of America’s children, would get nothing from the tax cut.
President Bush's proposed $55.3 billion repeal of the estate tax, which represents nearly one-quarter of the total cost of the tax cut plan, is even more unfair. It would provide the richest one percent of taxpayers with 88 percent of the benefit, while providing no fiscal stimulus whatsoever. While CWA supports policies to protect the inheritance of small business owners and family farmers, CWA opposes repeal of the estate tax, which would further entrench inherited wealth.
America’s working people created today’s budget surplus. Simple fairness requires that the surplus be used to address the needs of America’s working families, which were postponed during years of budget deficits.
For $375 billion, we can provide every Medicare beneficiary with prescription drugs. For $185 billion, we can provide every American child a modern, wired classroom. For $315 billion, we can extend Medicaid coverage to 12 million adults and children. Transferring part of the surplus to Social Security can ensure the soundness of the Trust Fund. We must not squander this historic opportunity to invest in America with a tax cut for the rich.
The Bush tax cut plan is fiscally irresponsible. It would return us to the years of large budget deficits brought on by the misguided Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s.
Independent analysts now estimate the true cost of the Bush plan at $2.6 trillion, including the costs of an accelerated tax cut and $800 billion in higher interest payments. Under even the most rosy economic predictions, the ten-year available surplus is estimated at $2 trillion, excluding the Social Security and Medicare surpluses and allowing domestic spending to grow with inflation and population. Simple arithmetic shows that even under the most optimistic scenario, the Bush tax cut plan would increase the deficit by $600 billion. And no one can be sure that these rosy economic predictions will come to pass.
Moreover, by targeting relief to the wealthy and back-loading tax cuts, the Bush plan fails to provide effective fiscal stimulus by giving immediate relief to middle and low income families who will spend it. During the coming months as Congress considers tax and budget priorities, CWA urges you to be guided by the following principles for fiscal policy: it must be fair, prudent, and invest in America’s current and future needs. There are many tax cut proposals that meet these tests, such as raising the basic exemption, paying an immediate "prosperity dividend," or temporarily making a portion of the payroll tax refundable. These and other proposals are worthy of consideration. President Bush’s plan is not.
Sincerely,
Morton Bahr
President
Have you ever seen your personnel file? You may be surprised by what it contains. You have the right to request to see it! I recommend that each of you request to see it on an annual basis. Per article 25 of the (Qwest) contract, an employee may review his personnel file on at least an annual basis, or as specified by law, with the review being conducted in the presence of the employee’s manager.
An employee will be provided a copy of his personnel file upon request but not more often than once in twelve consecutive months. Personnel files are those files maintained by the company, normally by an employee’s manager, that pertain to the employee’s work performance, background, employment history, and other personnel information.
You may challenge anything in your file, which you believe does not belong or is no longer valid ( I.e. old attendance, tardy records, letters of warning or discipline, et cetera). Should you need assistance in this endeavor, contact your steward.
Unionization of the telephone industry during the first three decades of this century was confined to a few scattered pockets of organized workers. The first union to attempt to organize telephone workers — the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) achieved limited success during these years. These early organizing efforts did not include women who worked in the telephone industry. It was not until 1912 that the IBEW accepted telephone operators — generally women — as members. In 1919, IBEW's telephone department claimed 200 telephone locals with 20,000 members.
During World War I, under a Presidential order on July 22, 1918, the telephone and telegraph system was placed under the control of the federal government and Postmaster General Albert S. Burelson. In 1919, Burelson was faced with a strike by the IBEW that virtually tied up phone service in New England and threatened to become nationwide. In an attempt to end the strike, Burelson issued a government bulletin acknowledging the right of workers to bargain through committees "chosen by them, to act for them." .
Frightened by the prospect of legitimate unionism on a large scale as a result of Burelson's statement, AT&T encouraged employees to form and join company dominated unions (usually called associations or committees).
The company associations succeeded in virtually destroying the existing IBEW telephone locals. By 1934, IBEW had been ousted in every location except Montana and the Chicago Plant. Company associations dominated the telephone industry until 1935.
In 1935, with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (more commonly known as the Wagner Act), the situation changed dramatically for telephone workers. The Wagner Act did several things.
Anniversaries: Kim Allen 5 years; Robert Arenburg, 31; Keith Beigh, 30; Philip Beyers, 26; Clayton Bowlby, 24; Frank Brock, 20; John Burger, 25; David Carrier, 22; Lynne Clevenger, 26; Judith Crew, 30; Terry Cupp, 22; David Curtiss, 24; Rick Dimitrou, 6; Gary Disch, 28; David Edgecombe, 30; James Ensey, 33; Alan Ferguson, 27; James Fukuyama, 22; Larry Gillen, 23; Randy Grams, 28; Ricky Harris, 5; Robert Harris, 30; Barbara Hawkinson, 30; Leamay Heib, 23; Katherine Hoyt, 32; Gary Hunt, 22; Jay Jense, 5; Ronald Jones, 21; James Kemp, 35; John Kirkland, 31; Don Kornegay, 30; John Lampman, 21; Bruce Larson, 30; James Lea, 24; Robert Loefler, 21; Jacquelyn Mattoni, 32; John Mazetier, 22; Keith McCart, 22; Keith McClements, 23; Floyd Nance, 25; Alan Nash, 24; David Overbo, 10; Jay Peers, 18; Timothy Pettit, 23; William Requa, 44; James Reynolds, 23; Gerald Schmidt, 5; Lawrence Schneider, 33; James Sholseth, 33; Robert Sims, 22; Gregory Steckler, 18; Eddie Stratton, 23; Bruce Summers, 28; Mary Swanson, 34; Kenneth Thomason, 24; Ben Villaruz, 19; Beverly Wilson, 20.
Retirees: Mitch Chaput
New Members: Glenda J. Giggs, Larry Samuel Kennedy, Jr., Robert L. Shannon; Juanita Wright.
Back to the newsletter archives.