Vol. XX No. 3
W
O
R
W
H
I C
U P S 7 0 9 -7 0 0
M arch 3 1 , 198 5
K
E
H
R
S
S
I D
’
C
E
O
A
M
R
P
E
E
Y
.. .vas a long, emotional day, and the subject was workers compensation. 1985, according to several speakers who testified at a jam-packed legislative hearing held by the Legis lature's Labor Committee on March 25 at the Augusta Civic Center, will be the year to make “major changes’’ in compensation for workers injured on the job in Maine. For many of the 3,000 filling the seats in the Civic Center Auditorium, “changes” really meant one thing: proposed cuts in benefits. Workers representing Maine’s unions — paperworkers, ironworkers from Bath, nurses, factory employees, public employees — and Maine employers, came to listen and present their views on what House speaker John Martin called the “most important legislation of the session.” Martin, who early in the morning started off many hours of extensive testimony before the Labor Com mittee by putting forward his own workers comp bill, summarized the inevitable upcoming debate on the issue. “Give every proposal your most serious attention,” he advised Committee members who will be the first but surely not the last legislative committee to consid er proposals this spring. Martin reminded them that “Maine's working people are known across this nation for their productivity,” and that their well-being should be kept foremost in mind while the debate over the cost and value of compensation goes on. Governor Joseph Brennan also has legislation in — L. D. 1062, “An Act to Reform the Maine Workers’ Compensation System,” — which was presented next. Among Brennan's sponsors, Ruth Joseph (D-Waterville) and Joseph Brannigan (D-Portland) spoke in its behalf, Joseph emphasizing the “myths” and “slo gans” swirling around the workers compensation issue, and Brannigan stressing the need for “competi tion and deregulation.’’ A number of other bills designed to cap workers compensation costs — chiefly offered at the urging of Maine business and industry, were heard throughout the morning. The stream of proposals was only inter rupted by a stunning, sad event. A paperworker from Madison, down for the day to support Maine labor's cause, collapsed and died of a heart attack in the hot auditorium. When the time came that afternoon for supporters and opponents to testify on proposed workers comp legislation, the mood had changed. Workers and busi ness leaders clapped and booed as representatives of industry and labor stepped to the mike. While there was much eloquence, there was also mean-spirited ness. Both sides on the issue understand the cost of
N
O
S
U
A
O
T
N
I O
?
N
M a in e
I N
s ta te
M
A
I N
E
lib r a ry
Governor Brennan after his Workers Comp address to the Legislature “Courage” needed to cut benefits to injured workers.
Injured workers, among many at the Civic Center Hearing on March 25. There on behalf of future workers compensation recipients.
Continued on Page 8
L e g is la tiv e
A tte m p ts
T o
C u t R e tire m e n t S y s te m
B e n e fits ,
P a g e
4
P a g e Tw o
S
O
S
T
C
A
M arch 1985
M a in e S ta te r
I A
T
E
L
I N
R
E
V
T
E
S
T
I R
E
M
M
E
by Executive Director Phil Merrill The operative political reality of the 1980’s is that elected officials want to appear to be concerned and generous, but they don’t want to risk asking taxpayers to pay for these tendencies. At the national level, this translates into huge budget deficits that will ultimately exact a great price on public employees and taxpayers in general. At the state and local level, where deficit spending is prohibited, this reality means “tightening our belts" and “creative financing". Translated freely, “tighten our belts" means keep ing programs but reducing the number of employees to carry them out. “Creative financing" means “Priva tization” (contracting out) and finding some source of money other than tax dollars. An example of creative financing currently before the legislature is a bill to bail out Keyes Fibre Compa ny, not with tax dollars but by raising everyone else's electric bills. A second example that hits Maine’s public employees much closer to home is LD 488, a proposal to set aside the “prudent man rule" for the Maine State Retirement Fund and dictate an immedi ate and complete divestiture of all stocks in all compa nies that do business in or with South Africa. The ultimate goal of the legislation is laudable: to help bring an end to South Africa’s racial policies. Whether this legislation contributes to that end is a matter of considerable debate. Many American cor porations do business of some kind with South Africa; for example, 40% of the 100 largest corporations listed in Standard & Poor’s Index of 500 leading stocks. A large number of these companies have signed and met the conditions of the “Sullivan Principles." These provide that the signatories offer non-segregated work facilities, engage in equal and fair employment practices, offer equal pay, etc. The sponsors of LD 488 belittel these distinctions and urge total diverstiture, with the goal of forcing all American companies out of South Africa. Other South African reformers, including 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Tutu, believe that we should not drive American business out of South Africa but use our in vestment power to force reform along the line of the Sullivan Principles. Bishop Tutu calls this “our last chance to avert the blood bath”. While the debate over foreign policy issues goes on, MSEA opposes the terms of LD 488 on different grounds. First, that the legislature has no place in de ciding where retirement monies will or will not be in
T H E M A IN E S T A T E R Phil Merrill, Editor Don Matson, Managing Editor (USPS 709-700) is published monthly for $1.80 per year by the Maine State Employees Association, 65 S ta te S tre e t, A ugusta, ME 04330. Second-class postage paid at Augusta, Maine and ad ditional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Maine Stater, MSEA, 65 State Street, Augus ta, ME 04330.
OFFICERS PRESIDENT GerryStanton P.O. Box 9 So. Windham 04082 VICE PRESIDENT Robert Ruhlin 52 Manners Ave. Bangor 04401 TREASURER BradRonco RFD #1, Box 460 Hallowell 04347
E
N
N
T
T
S
A
N
Y
S
D
T
T
E
H
E
M
A
I N
E
M
vested; and second, the prudent man rule should not be set aside for any purpose. The Retirement Fund is a trust, the beneficiaries of which are the workers whose labors have produced these savings. The trust is controlled by the Trustees, who are chosen by the affected employees and re tirees as well as the Governor. Only the Trustees should decide where these monies will be spend and then only in accord with the “prudent man rule”. The “prudent man rule” says that when you hold money in trust for other people you must invest those funds so as to minimize risk, and within that restraint, maximize return. When LD 488 sets aside the “prudent man rule” it says, in effect, that public employees life savings can be put at risk to accomplish an unrealated, though worthwhile, goal. If I may be allowed a personal note here, this is the argument that really angers me. Our public employees are good citizens. They serve their state, they care about the common welfare. They don’t shirk when all are asked to pitch in and work or sacrifice for the good of others! In fact, a strong sense of public service is what prompted many MSEA members to seek public employment. But this is not mutual sacrifice, it is ex ploitation. This bill puts all the risk on just one group: public workers. Why their life savings and no one else’s? Why not legislate it tor all employees’ pension trust funds? Why not all trust funds in Maine, including all those in Maine banks and insurance companies? Are the life savings of public employees any less sacred, any less their vested right, than those of anyone else? Why is it that these “well-intended" legislators have not drafted the legislation to say that any loss that the retirement fund suffers as a result of total divestiture will be made up from a general fund appropriation? Because the potential price tag would make the bill a political ■pariah. And if all the taxpayers of Maine cannot afford this risk or is unwilling to underwrite it with their hard earned tax dollars, why should a much smaller group be asked to insure the risk with their hard-earned life savings? There is another and maybe even more important concern with LD 488. If we allow it to be done for South Africa, will it stop there? When a politician from Waterville wants to help out poor old Keyes Fibre, do they not turn to our retirement fund and ask, if we could do it for people in far away South Africa, can’t we do it for our workers right here in Maine? Where do our well-meaning friends turn if the Indian/Cianbro
DIRECTORS AREA1 Robert Dugal George Burgoyne 21 Teague Street 228 Center St: Caribou, 04736 Bangor 04401 Wellington Noyes Ervin Huntington Jonesboro 04648 P.O. Box 205 Bangor 04401 AREA II JimWebster Bruce Hodsdon 52 Glen St. RFD #1. Box 1515 Augusta 04330 N. Monmouth 04265 Robert Kelley Ed Wheaton RFD2 R.F.D. 3. Box 12 Gardiner 04345 Pittston 04345 AREAIII Ben Conant Bob Galloupe 66 High St. Box 681 So. Paris 04281 Brunswick 04011 Carol Gould Susan Deschambault 470 Court St. 9 Porter Street Auburn, 04210 Biddeford 04005 RETIREE DIRECTOR Phil Goggins Cross Point Rd. N. Edgecomb 04556
cement plant in Thomaston falls over the financial brink? If experience with the political system doesn’t make the answer to these questions clear, then experi ence in other states does. The majority of states where the legislature has imposed “social investment” on the retirement system they’ve done so in multiple areas, including any forced investment into troubled areas of that state’s economy. Most evidence shows that this is costing those funds money. A rate of return of 1% less for our fund in Maine would cost public em ployees trust almost $8 million in the first year. And its effect would multiply in following years. When its position on LD 488 MSEA sent a message to all of those, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Re publican who think “creative financing" might include use of the Maine State Retirement Trust Funds: hands off! The following are excerpts from the text of Vermont SEA’s Executive Director Tom Whit ney’s testimony to the House Govt. Operations Committee, 2-28-85 on divestment of retire ment funds. . . . Our dispute focuses on the issue of who has the right and responsibility to determine the in vestment policy for the state employees’ retire ment fund. Simply stated, our position is that the investment policies and decisions regarding state employee retirement funds — decisions in volving the state workers’ monies — are stat utorily and appropriately decisions to be made by the State Employees' Retirement Board. . . . If state employees desire to have the retire ment board consider a particular investment policy, i.e., take the position that the retirement monies should be withdrawn from any particular enterprise, company, or country/geographic area, they have the ability to present their views through their elected representatives on the re tirement board for consideration. That board may then investigate and decide, within their charged responsibility, the investment policies. . . . We would then support a resolution from this legislature that the state employees’ retirement board should consider the Sullivan principles, which are outlined in the attached materials, when making investment decisions in compa nies, corporations and other financial institu tions doing business in South Africa and Namibia.
STAFF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Phil Merrill ASSOCIATE EXEC. DIRECTORS SteveLeech, Collective Bargaining John Lemieux. Legislative Affairs CHIEF LEGALCOUNSEL RobertadeAraujo DIRECTOR, FIELDSERVICES Roger Parlin DIRECTOR, FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION Joan C. Towle ATTORNEYS INSURANCE Shawn Keenan COORDINATOR Ethelyn Purdy Eric Nelson RESEARCH M EM BERSHIP Chuck Hillier Barbara Chaffee COMMUNICATIONS ACCOUNT CLERK Don Matson Carmen Gardner EDUCATION/ SUPPORT STAFF TRAINING Steven Butterfield Wanda Ingham Doris Clark Eric Davis FIELD Kathy Botello REPRESENTATIVES M argaret O'Connor Ron Ahiquist Carol Wilson Roger Dunning D ebbie Roy John Graham Cheryl Stoddard Meg Castagna C rystal H odsdon Sandy Dionne Andy Wing TimWooten Donna Davis RECLASSIFICATION ANALYST Carol Webb
65 State Street, Augusta, Maine 04330 Tel. (207)622-3151 1-800-452-8794
March T985
Maine Stater
Pa9®
MSEA Submits Legislation for Prompt Dispute Resolution The last tw o MSEA co n tra c t settle m e n ts were pre ceded by m onth after m onth of fa c t-fin d in g and a rb i tra tio n — w ith no guarantee th a t the union w o u ld even get a fa ir shake at the end of the process. Long delay serves m anagem ent’s purpose in Maine p u b lic em ployee barg a in in g ; not only does it disco u ra g e good fa ith b a rgaining, but it allow s the e m ployer to use m oney th a t w o u ld o rd in a rily go to em ployees as w ages and benefits. MSEA firm ly believes th a t le g isla tio n is needed to ’ im prove the d ispute reso lu tio n process in p u b lic se ctor barga in in g in Maine. A bsent the rig h t to strike or b in d in g a rb itra tio n on m oney issues, there needs to be a strong incentive fo r both sides to settle fa ir c o n tra c ts in a tim ely way. T his year, MSEA has su b m itte d L. D. 980 “An Act to
Provide for Prompt Dispute Resolution Under Maine’s State Bargaining Law.” S ponsored by S enator Beverly B ustin (D-Augusta). Rep. Ernest G reenlaw (R-Standish), Rep. C harles Priest (D -B runsw ick), and S enator C harles W ebster (RF arm ington), this b ill am ends c u rre n t law to rem ove the incentive n ot to settle a tim e ly co n tra ct. If th is leg isla tio n is enacted, a fte r fa c t-fin d e rs in a c o n tra c t disp u te su b m it th e ir fin d in g s , they w ill s u b m it estim ates of the costs of those fin d in g s . If agreem ent is not reached in 30 days, the state is re quired to set aside m oney to fu n d these costs in a separate, in te r est-bearing account. T his way the state canno t c o n tin u e to use m oney slated fo r a potential w age se ttle m e n t fo r o th e r p u r poses.
The Case of the Misplaced Memorial Day______ In MSEA co n tra cts, the M em orial Day h o lid a y fo r Maine State em ployees has co n s is te n tly been o b served on the last M onday in May. T h a t’s the way th a t paid holiday has been bargained fo r and agreed to since 1S79. U ntil th is year. In February, MSEA g o t w in d of a change by the P ersonnel d e partm ent, w h ic h began te llin g co n fid e n tia l em ployees th a t the M em orial Day h oliday w o u ld be observed on T hursday May 30, 1985. Later, the state inform ed MSEA th a t all b a rg a in in g u n it em ployees w ou ld have to take th a t T hursday as the holiday, too. Besides ru in in g the tra d itio n a l h o lid a y w eekend fo r em ployees and th e ir fam ilies, the bizarre change was not bargained and is an u n fa ir la b o r p ractice. MSEA has file d a co m p la in t w ith the M aine Labor R elations B oard requesting th a t “ the state re sto re the status quo ante w ith respect to the observance of Me m orial Day as a paid holiday on tne last M onday in M ay” as the c o n tra c t requires. The Labor B oard c o m p la in t does not affe ct Maine c o u rt em ployees, w h o also w o u ld have th e ir h oliday changed effective th is year, but MSEA has also taken the issue before the legislature. The b ill MSEA su p ports w o u ld restore the tra d itio n a l h o lid a y fo r all em ployees, in c lu d in g c o u rt em ployees. MSEA c h ie f counsel R oberta d eA raujo is c o n fid e n t th a t the tra d itio n a l h oliday w ill be restored. “We sh o u ld w in in at least one o f those tw o fo ru m s ,” deA raujo said. H o p e fu lly long b e fore the last week in May!
M e d i a t o r J a n e R o y m e e ts w ith lo c a l 5 te a m a n d c h ie f n e g o t ia t o r S te v e L e e c h . R e s o lv in g th e la s t is s u e s . . .
Lewiston Local No. 5 — Tentative Contract Agreement M SEA’s Local 5 and the city of L e w iston and S chool C om m itte e have te n ta tive ly agreed to a 2-year c o n tra c t co ve rin g 130 city and sch o o l em ployees. H ig h lig h ts of th a t settlem ent: • A revised salary sch e d u le w h ic h w ill re fle ct a d d i tio n a l costs of 6.5% fo r each of the 2 years (c o n ta in in g a 7th L o n g e vity step a fte r 15 years of service) • Im proved va ca tio n a ccrual rates and lim its • Im proved health in surance coverage • Increased m ileage rates • An im proved bereavem ent leave p ro visio n • R e cla ssifica tio n s fo r ce rta in em ployees • M any language changes designed to stre n g th e n p ro visio n s such as se n io rity, h o u rs and w o rk schedules, and the grievance procedure. Assessing the new c o n tra ct, MSEA C hief N e g o tia to r Steve Leech said, “ W hen MSEA w o n the e le ctio n, de fe a tin g AFSCME in M arch of 1983, we carved o ff the
3rd year of the c o n tra c t w h ich had been negotiated because it co n ta in e d n o th in g m ore than a w age in crease. We fe lt stro n g ly th a t m any o th e r areas of the c o n tra c t needed im provem ent. W e’ve been successful in b rin g in g many of those im provem ents. T hose we w ere unable to get w ill be raised as issues in fu tu re ne g o tia tio n s. “ I’m satisfied w ith the results, and very proud of our B arg a inin g team m em bers w ho show ed great perse verance and patience d u rin g the 6 long m onths it to o k to neg o tia te the c o n tra ct. Local 5 m em bers owe the team th e ir th a n k s .” One hu rd le rem ains: ra tific a tio n by the Lew iston City C o u n cil. The c o u n c il e arlier th is year rejected a po lice su p e rviso r c o n tra c t w h ich co n ta in e d a m o d ified w age schedule. B ut because of the d is tin c tio n s betw een the tw o, Leech is hop e fu l of passage w hen it com es before the C o u n cil on A p ril 16th. Im m ediately fo llo w in g , MSEA w ill begin its ra tific a tio n process by m ailin g fa c t sheets and ba llo ts to the m em bership.
New MSEA Attorney E ric N elson, o rig in a lly fro m Needham , M assachu setts, started in M arch as a s ta ff a tto rn e y fo r MSEA. He fills the p o s itio n vacated by John Lem ieux, w h o is now M SEA’s le g isla tive lobbyist. N elson and his w ife Lisa now live in G ardiner. He is a 1982 g ra d u a te o f N orth e a stern U niversity S chool of Law in B oston. D u rin g the tim e he attended N o rtheast ern, Nelson also w o rke d fo r tw o law firm s — one in De tro it and one in B oston — s p e cia lizin g in em plo ym e n t law and u n io n re p re se nta tio n. From 1977-79, he was em ployed as a c o m m u n ity o r g a n izer in C h ica g o fo r th e N orth River C om m ission, a city agency c o n c e rn e d w ith tenants rig h ts and sm all business d e velopm ent. A fte r g ra d u a tin g fro m law sch o o l, Nelson becam e a sta ff law yer fo r Pine Tree Legal in P resque Isle. “ M ost of my in itia l w o rk at MSEA w ill be d o in g a rb i tra tio n s — b o th grievance a rb itra tio n s and som e re c la s s ific a tio n s ,” Nelson said. He is also researching the im p a ct o f a re ce n t ru lin g by the S uprem e C o u rt w h ic h says th a t th e federal w age and h o u r law. the Fair L a b o r S ta n d a rd s Act, a p plies to state em ployees.
Welcome!
ig e Six
M arch 1985
M a in e S ta te r
1
9
8
5
S
T
E
W
A
R
D
C
O
N
Stewards debate an issue in one of the workshops on internal organizing. Field rep. Sandy Dionne, upper left.
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:
N
E
W
D
I R
E
MSEA members are now working under their fourth state employee contract. During the years since the first contract settlement in 1979, you’d think we’d learned something. We have! The March 8 and 9 Steward Conference in Augusta was a clear demonstration that the time of the union steward in MSEA is coming fast. Attendance was high, with a large number of new stewards present. The training workshops reflected the union’s growing con cern with the direct day-to-day issues at many kinds of workplaces. Criticism from new and veteran stewards about the value of the 2-day gathering was wellplaced; the response was overwhelmingly positive. MSEA vice-president Bob Ruhlin opened the stew ard session with remarks about the need for aggres sive enforcement of employee contracts at work. The continually high grievance load in Maine state service underscores that need. This year, workshops were offered in specific health and safety concerns: office hazards, road and high way maintenance hazards, and problems which may exist in a variety of state buildings where employees work. Wanda Ingham, education coordinator for MSEA, and MSEA field reps helped lead each one. Workers compensation was the all-important sub ject of a Friday afternoon panel discussion. Former MSEA attorney Joe Mackey, who now handles many state worker compensation claims, Rep. Charlie Priest, Larry Tardiff from the Maine Workers Compen sation Commission, and William Palmer were fea tured. Given the controversial nature of workers comp this year in Maine, their thoughts and comments were valuable.
S P E C IA L
T H A N K S
The turnout of Maine state employees for MSEA’s 1985 steward program was exceptionally good, and so was the program. In a public sector union like MSEA, with 1000 workplaces across the state, stewards serve as crucial representatives for employees. The better
Joe Mackey, second on left, joined panel to discuss workers’ compensation.
Stewards Arlene Hutchinson and Kathy Kadi, with MSEA field rep. Tim Wooten.
(
Marilyn Burgess George Burgoyne Richard Clark Normand Cote Eunice Cotton Gary Cray Donatien Denis Joseph Dionne Earl Farrington Carol Gould Alfred Greenlaw
Anne Harris Ed Higgins Rob Hinchey Bruce Hodsdon Wayne Hollingworth J. W. Closson Janet Hansen Bob Galloupe Carol Grenier Elaina Gray Dana Gray
Howard Seavey Tiny Huntington Claudette McKee Sharon Hanley John Rolland Dail Ruhlin Adrien St. Amand Linda Sawyer Janet Saxton Charles Simon Michael Smith
Ron Mercier, Dick Clark, Stu Morin, and Norman Cote during a workshop.
Page Sev
Maine Stater
March 1985
DTIONS FOR MSEA AT THE WORKPLACE A m ock grievance p ro ce d u re in w h ic h all present to o k part (w hich MSEA recorded on videotape) was the h ig h lig h t of the firs t day. S tew ards to o k both la b o r and m anagem ent roles w ith varying success. M ost en joyed it, and su ggestio n s fo r next tim e w ere useful! On Saturday, M arch 9 m ore stew ards arrived. W o rk shops on Internal O rg a n izin g and the R ights of S tew ards — the heart of effective rep re se nta tio n in any union p u b lic or private, were led by Sandy D ionne and chief legal counsel R oberta deA raujo. MSEA attorney Shawn Keenan discussed state g o v ernm ent personnel laws and rules w ith stew ards; the surprise of the day was the interest in th is subject, and the expressed need fo r k n o w in g m uch more. “ Dealing w ith S u p e rviso rs,” w ho are very m uch union m em bers but m ust oversee the daily a ctivitie s of all state w orkers, was a new w o rk s h o p in tro d u c e d by W anda Ingham . Job R e classification, always a to p ic of concern fo r ran k-a n d-file em ployees, was reviewed by MSEA staff m em ber Carol Webb. A n o th e r new feature — d iscu ssio n of the MSEA State Em ployee A ssistance P rogram by D ire cto r Kevin Parker — h ig h lig h te d the need fo r in-depth stew ard tra in in g on re co g n izin g p ro b le m s many people face eith e r on the jo b or at hom e w h ich may a ffe ct th e ir w ork.
O r g a n iz e r o f th e S t e w a r d C o n fe r e n c e W a n d a I n g h a m le d o n e ' w o r k s h o p o n s a fe ty a n d h e a lth .
Many people helped make this successful c o n fe r ence w ork, but the real message c o u ld n ’t be m issed: stew ards are in d ivid u a ls w ho may have to deal w ith a variety of in d ivid u a l p ro b le m s and em ployee rights, but it’s th e ir co lle ctive stre n g th th a t co n tin u e s to make the union strong.
TO STEWARDS able they are to handle c o n tra c t p ro b le m s and g rie vances the m ore effe ctive the union is. MSEA w o u ld like to thank those w ho came th is year, and e ncourage th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n in the future. Mary Anne T urow ski Jim W ebster Linda W ickstrom A rlene H utchinson Kathleen Kadi Lois Kelly Al K ieltyka W illiam K rider A line Lachance A rth u r Libby Neil L itc h fie ld
Ron M cE lroy Paul M cT igue Anne Mayo R onald M e rcie r Stu M orin Stepan P eniuk W aldo Pray G eraldine Later P auline W ard L a u rin a A lb e rt Gil A uger
Sue B eckw ith Diane B elanger L o rra in e B elanger W inston B ridges D ick Trahey Steve S to u t D ebbie M atson Fred M urray Paul Doyle Al B ic k fo rd Ben C on a nt
M S E A S t a f f a t t o r n e y S h a w n K e e n a n r e v ie w e d P e r s o n n e l ru le s .
A m o n g th o s e lis t e n in g a n d s p e a k in g : W in s to n B r id g e s , le ft, a n d W illia m K r id e r , c e n te r .
K e v in P a rk e r, D ir e c t o r o f th e E m p lo y e e A s s is t a n c e P r o g r a m .
Page Eight
Maine Stater
March 1985
Workers’ Compensation: Continued from page 1 making substantial changes — in dollars and cents, and in the lives of those injured on the job. Susan Accardi, speaking late in the day for the Maine State Nurses Association stated the workers case succinctly. “ Safety on the job,” she told the Committee, is what Maine workers need most, and legislators should focus on “ the most important factor — prevention.” Her words, like many others, may be lost in the lob byists dream of cutting workers compensation bene fits in Maine, but the Legislature cannot forget one thing: workers compensation exists for people who are injured at unsafe workplaces under unsafe condi tions. They, and their families — not employers, not in surance companies, and not politicians — always pay the most severe price.
Do Maine Citizens Know The Facts About Workers’ Compensation?
3,000 packed one side of the auditorium to the rafters; most stayed all day to hear legislative proposals.
Are workers' compensation costs somehow “ damaging" Maine’s economy? • Maine was #1 in wage growth in 1980-83, With unemployment below the national av erage. • Best business climate in years in 1984 in Maine! • M a in e w o r k e rs ' c o m p c o s t s d o n o t e x c e e d
Maine State Nurses Ass’n respresentative Susan Accardi testified at the Hearing. “ The single most important factor is prevention”
J
-------------------------------------------- -
\
Over 3,000 people turned out for the first day of hearings on workers’ compensation pro posals, mostly union members in support of Maine Labor. Credit is due leaders of the State AFL-CIO — Charles O'Leary and Ed Gorham — for their hard, successful work in insuring the turnout, and in resisting this year's unwise political effort to diminish protections for injured workers.
___________________________________________________________________________
y
the New England average. Why do insurance companies and some indus tries complain so much about the cost of work ers’ compensation? • Maine’s injury rate is the worst in the U.S. for number of injuries: second worst in seri ousness of injuries. • Maine’s workers’ compensation is directly related to wage loss; costs relate directly to incidence and seriousness of injuries. • Private insurance companies spend a paltry .07% of workers compensation premiums on injury prevention! • “ The greatest failure of Maine’s public offi cials in the area of reduction of work inju ries and the reduction of their seriousness is their failure even to recognize the issue, let alone do anything about it.” Who really benefits from workers’ comp? • The workers’ compensation law specifically eliminates a worker's right to sue his or her employer, or management, regardless of negligence, regardless of how severe the injury may be. • Workers’ compensation does not protect fringe benefits (for instance, medical insur ance for the worker and his or her family, and social security benefits) while the indi vidual is not working due to injury. • Many workers lose their jobs after being in jured, and many workers recovered from a work injury seeking new employment are denied the opportunity because of preju dice against that individual as a workers’ compensation recipient. • “ Insurance companies and large employers are represented by the most eminent law firms in Maine, often arrayed against injured workers without any legal representation.” — from “ Maine Workers Compensation System: Fact and Fiction” Maine AFL-CIO
March 1985
Maine Stater
Page Three
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS M aine State Em ployees and Political Activity
Every politician’s dream...our money!
MSEA VP B o b R u h l i n t e s t i f i e d a t t h e P o l i t i c a l R i g h t s b i l l h e a r i n g in F e bru ary
MSEA’s Political Rights Bill In MSEA’s 1985 legislation seeking political rights for classified Maine State employees — similar to legislation passed by both the House and Senate in 1983 but vetoed by the Governor in 1984 — is now being considered by the 112th Legislature’s State Government Committee. L. D. 435 — “An Act to Grant Certain Political Rights to State Employees’’ is sponsored by
Senators John Tuttle (D-Sanford). Beverly Bustin (D-Augusta), Senate President Charles Pray (DMillinocket) and Rep. Edie Beaulieu (D-Portland). The bill asks that state employees be given the right to be a candidate in both partisan and non partisan local elections, and participate fully in political campaigns, including solicitation of campaign funds. Unclassified state employees (including all political appointees) are not subject to these conditions, which discriminate against the far larger number of classified state workers. The bill does provide for certain reasonable prohibitions in state employee political activity: • No employee may use official authority to interfere with the election process: • No employee may solicit political funds from a member of the public whom he deals with in his official capacity or from an em ployee whom he supervises. MSEA believes strongly, as sponsor Beverly Bustin stated in testifying for this bill, that “ Our system of government is founded on the premise that participation by the people in the political process if essential to its success. “ As legislators we should not discourage po litical involvement by any citizen or group of citi zens,” Bustin said, ‘‘unless there is a compelling public policy interest at stake. There is no such interest which would compel us to limit political activity by classified state employees. Classified state employees, as public servants, are as qual ified as anyone to assess the public good and to participate in the process which furthers our broadest goals.”
If you work for Maine State government as a classi fied employee — and most state workers do — or as an unclassified employee in a state program funded by federal money, you have many of the same political rights that other Maine citizens have. But under cur rent federal and state law, most other citizens have certain important rights you don’t have. Since state workers as a whole tend to be more po litically active, vote in relatively greater numbers, and keep more informed on many political matters than does the general population, it’s important to know what you may not do as well as what you may do. First, what you may not do. Employees in classified service and those em ployees in unclassified service whose work involves state programs funded (in whole or in part) by federal money are not allowed to: — use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomina tion for office; — coerce or advise other state employees to con tribute anything of value to a political party, committee organization or person for political purposes; — be a candidate for elective office in a partisan election (primary, special, or general election). — classified employees may not solicit any contri butions from any person for any political pur pose in connection with any election for federal, state, or county office. You may vote for anyone you choose and ex press your opinion (even if it’s a bumper sticker) on any political subject or candidate! As a state employee you also may (but not during work hours or on state property): — Join and hold an office in a political party, or ganization or club. — Attend meetings, vote on candidates and issues, and take an active part in the management of a political club, organization or party; — attend political party conventions and take part and serve as delegate or alternate at such a con vention; — Do volunteer work for a partisan candidate, cam paign committee, political party or nominating convention; — Campaign for candidates in a partisan election or solicit votes in support of or opposition to candidates. — Attend meetings or rallies, including committee meetings of political organizations; — Sign, originate, and circulate nominating peti tions for candidates in a partisan election for public office; — Transport voters to the polls as part of an effort of a candidate or political party to win a partisan election; — Make financial contributions to a political party or organization; — Serve at the polls as an election official or clerk or as a checker, watcher or challenger for a po litical party or a party candidate in a partisan election; — Be a candidate in non-partisan elections or otherwise participate in non-partisan affairs of a municipality, provided that participation does not result in a financial gain other than that paid by the municipality for services offered. MSEA is opposed to much of the existing restriction on state workers’ political rights, believing they were created for another time and for different circum stances. Your union has consistently sought in recent years to expand your rights and currently has legis lation submitted to the 112th Legislature to do so. MSEA's political rights bill is summarized below.
P a g e Four
A
Y
M a in e S ta te r
E
A
R
O
F
L
E
G
I S
W O R K E R B E N E F 1985 is not the year when Maine’s public and private workforce can rest assured that many of their hardwon benefits and protections will be safe and sound, shielded from the always-restless political process. Some legislators made a half-hearted attempt early in the legislative session to repeal the recent 30 cents minimum wage increase; though the first 10 cents is safe, the next 20 cents may still be subject to attack. The Governor, business interests, and the insurance industry are out to cut workers’ compensation bene fits. A bill is in to remove elected employer and retiree representatives from the Board of Trustees of the state Health Insurance Program and consolidate con trol in the executive branch’s office of Finance and Administration. And there are several legislative pro posals in the hopper to cut benefits provided by the Maine State Retirement System, or to influence its in vestment policies regardless of the collective view of the employees who contribute. The Health Insurance Program L. D. 1131 — “An Act to Restructure the Employees Health Insurance Program . . This proposal, sponsored by Senator Judy Kany (DWaterville), Rep. Dan Gwadosky (D-Fairfield). Rep. Robert Dillenback (R-Cumberland) and Rep. Arthur Descoteaux (D-Biddeford) would put the present Health Insurance Program for state workers entirely in the hands of the Department of Finance and Adminis tration. It eliminates the program’s Board of Trustees, now 6 members, three of whom are chosen by MSEA — two active employees and one retiree. The others rep resent the Maine Teachers Association and the Gover nor; the Department of Finance and Administration Commissioner acts as a non-voting member. Essentially, this bill would remove the right of em ployee participants in the program to have a strong voice in administration of the program. MSEA is strongly opposed. The Maine State Retirement System The nearly $800 million Retirement System is an at tractive piece of capital to many politicians looking to be generous without having to spend limited state tax dollars. One of MSEA’s main jobs is to see that contri butions of participating public employees in the system are wisely invested and protected. L D. 637 — “An Act to Clarify the Maine State Retire ment System’s Board of Trustees’ Relationship With the System’s Investment Managers.” Sponsored by Sen. Paul Gauvreau (D-Lewiston), Rep. John McSweeney (D-Old Orchard Beach), and Rep. Alexander Richard (D-Madison). This legislation is meant to strengthen the “prudent man” rule for investment of Retirement System Funds. MSEA chief legal counsel Roberta deAraujo has sent a letter to the Aging, Retirement and Veterans Commit tee where the bill is now being considered urging that it be amended to require an even more strict standard of the System’s Investment managers. “The bill makes two desirable changes in current law,” deAraujo wrote. “It eliminates the geographical restriction on selection of the system’s investment managers, thereby allowing the Board of Trustees to select the most highly qualified money managers, re gardless of their location; secondly, it specifies the standard of care to which the System's investment managers are held, thereby clarifying their relation ship to the Board of Trustees and the System’s mem bers. “Although MSEA applauds these aspects of L. D. 637, we believe that the bill does not go far enough in specifying the standard of care required of the invest ment managers. The bill would require that they comply with the “prudent man rule.” This rule for merly governed the conduct of the vast majority of pension fund fiduciaries throughout this country, in the private as well as the public sector. The rule is typ
L
A
T
I V
E
A
T
M arch 1985 T
E
M
P
T
S
I T S I N M A I N E ically said to require the care that an ordinarily pru dent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. “Congress considered and rejected this standard in favor of a more strict ruie when it enacted the Em ployee Retirement Income Security Act, the federal law governing private sector pension funds. Because the ordinary man is rarely called upon to make invest ment decisions involving hundreds of thousands let alone millions of dollars, Congress found that the pru dent man standard was not adequate to safeguard the pension funds of private sector employees. Instead, Congress determined that the appropriate standard is that followed by persons familiar with investment mat ters of the magnitude faced by pension funds. Specif ically, ERISA requires that pension fund fiduciaries act “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under
T
O
G
O
A
F
T
E
R
the circumstances then prevailing that’s prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such mat ters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.” “MSEA believes that this Legislature should require this higher standard of care of the Retirement Sys tem’s investment managers for the same reasons Con gress adopted that standard. L. D. 271 — “An Act to Clarify Accidental Death Bene fits to Spouses and Children of Members.” Sponsored by Rep. Dan Hickey (D-Augusta), this proposal would reduce accidental death benefits pay able to survivors of a member of the Retirement System by any amounts received from workers’ com pensation. MSEA is opposed.
r D is a b ility
R e tire m e n t
L. D. 668 — “An Act to Modify State Disability Retire ment Provisions.” Submitted by last year’s Aging, Retirement and Vet eran’s Committee. MSEA counsel deAraujo has warned MSEA mem bers, especially those recipients of disability retire ment benefits. That this bill would “result in severe cutbacks in disability retirement benefits provided by the MSRS.” MSEA is adamantly opposed, and urges members to contact their legislators to express oppo sition. Current Law — Disability Benefits 1. Initial Eligibility: You are entitled to receive a disability re tirement allowance if, prior to reaching age 60 or normal retirement age, you become incapacitated to such an extent that you cannot perform the duties of your job. 2. Continued Eligibility: After 5 years, you can only continue to receive a disability retirement allowance if your disability makes you unable to engage in any substantially gainful activities for which you are qualified. 3. Medical Proof: You must prove that you are eligible for a disability retirement allowance by a medical exam conducted by a doctor mutually agreed to by you and the Retirement System. The Retirement System may require you to undergo a medical exam once a year under the same terms. 4. Amount of Benefit: A disability retirement allow ance is equal to % of a member’s average final compensation (the average of the member’s 3 high est years). 5. Length of Benefit: Your disability retirement allow ance will terminate on the 10th anniversary of normal retirement age or, if earlier, when your normal service retirement allowance would equal your disability retirement allowance. From then on, you will receive a normal service retirement allow ance equal to 2% times your average final compen sation times your years of service under the System. 5. Earnings: Compensation you earn working for an other employer while retired is set off against your disability retirement allowance only if it exceeds $10,000 per year.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. L. D. 668 — Proposed Cutbacks 1. Initial Eligibility: You would be entitled to receive a disa bility retirement allowance if, prior to reaching normal retirement age, you become incapacitated to such an extent that you cannot perform the duties of your job or any other work with the same employer that you are qualified to do, regardless of the rate at which you would be paid. _____________________ __________________________
B e n e fits
IMPACT: Many employees that would be eligible for disability retirement benefits under current law will not be eligible for benefits if L. D. 668 is en acted. Continued Eligibility: After 1 year, you would only be entitled to continue receiving a disability retirement allowance if your disability made you unable to engage in any sub stantially gainful activities for which you are qual ified. IMPACT: If you are able to do some type of work despite your disability, you may lose your disability benefits after 1 year (instead of after 5 years). Medical Proof: You would be required to prove that you are eligible for a disability retirement allow ance by a medical exam conducted by one of three doctors chosen by the Retirement System. The Retirement System could require you to undergo a medical exam once a year under the same terms. IMPACT: You may be forced to have your disability judged by a doctor whose methods or views you disagree with. Amount of Benefit: For employees who become members of the Retirement System after 1/1/86, a disability retirement allowance would equal — 2% times a member's average final compensation times the members’s years of service under the System, plus the number of years between the date of disa bility and normal retirement age. This amount can be no less than 30% and no more than 80% of average final compensation. IMPACT: If an employee is more than 27 years old when he becomes a member of the Retirement System and he later becomes disabled, his retire ment allowance will be less than % of his average final compensation, and may be as little as 30% of average final compensation. Length of Benefit: Your disability retirement allow ance would terminate when you reach normal re tirement age. From then on, you would receive a normal service retirement allowance equal to 2% times your average final compensation times your years of service under the System. IMPACT: Your disability benefits would cease 10 years earlier than under current law. Earnings: Compensation you earn working for an other employer while retired would be set off ag ainst your disability retirement allowance if, when added to your disability retirement allowance, it ex ceeded your average final compensation (plus cost of living increases). IMPACT: You may lose disability benefits even though you earn less than $10,000 per year while retired.
March 1985
Page Nine
Maine Stater
L o c a l 6 (B a th Iro n w o rk e rs ) J o h n B o t e l l a : “ We b e l i e v e t h e s y s t e m c a n w o rk b e tte r.’’
T hree s p o n s o r s o f w o r k e r s ' c o m p b ills : Rep. P a tr ic k M c G o w a n ; H o u s e S p e a k e r J o h n M a r t i n , a n d S e n a t e P r e s i d e n t C h a r l e s P ray.
Summary Of Workers Compensation. Bills Proposed In 1985 t i o n b e n e f i t s a r e m u c h lo w e r ) . • B r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n s o f m a j o r l e g i s l a t i o n s u b m i t t e d to th is f ir s t s e s s io n o f th e 11 2th M a in e L e g is la tu r e a f f e c t in g
w orkers
c o m p e n s a tio n
b e n e fits
are
p re s e n te d
b e lo w .
•
0 O ffs e t (re d u c e ) w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e fits
• A l l o w th e W o r k e r s ’ C o m p C o m m is s io n to in v e s ti
" I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e o v e r a l l t r u s t o f t h e w o r k e r s ’ c o m
b y a n y o th e r b e n e fits
Speaker John
M a rtin 's
re h a b ilita tio n
•
P r o v id e th a t a t t o r n e y fees b e p a id b y tn e e m
g ra m a n d c o m p e t it iv e s ta te f u n d are th e o n ly p r o p o s a ls w h i c h m a y i m p r o v e t h e s y s t e m w i t h o u t v i c t i m i z i n g
•
in ju re d
w orkers
T h is is G o v e r n o r B r e n n a n ' s b ill, s p o n s o r e d b y R e p re s e n ta tiv e
P a tric k
M cG owan
(D -C annan),
S e n a to r
W illia m D ia m o n d ( D -W in d h a m ), R e p re s e n ta tiv e R u th ( D - W a t e r v i lle ) ,
and
R e p re s e n ta tiv e
Joseph
B ra n n ig a n (D -P o rtla n d ). M a jo r c h a n g e s it p ro p o s e s , e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 8 6 : • M a k e the W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n S y s te m “ c o m p e t i t i v e " , w h e r e e a c h in s. c o . w o u l d s e t it s o w n ra t e s . ( N o w t h e r e is a s i n g l e s e t o f r a t e s f o r all).
o th e r w o rds, a c o m m e n t on an in ju ry b y a c o n
LD 1063 — “An Act to Improve Workers’ Compensaton and Reform the Rate-Making Process”
increases t o 2 0 % o v e r t h e n e x t 3 “ c o m p e t it iv e ’’ s y s te m m o v e d in to
p la c e . • R e d u c e an
in ju re d
w o rke rs’
maximum w e e k l y
b e n e f i t f r o m 16 6 % % o f t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y w a g e to 1 1 0 % ( m o s t a v e ra g e a n d m in im u m c o m p e n s a
S p o nso red
by
R e p re s e n ta tiv e
Joseph
B ra n n ig a n
H o u s e S p e a k e r J o h n M a r t i n ’s b ill, c o - s p o n s o r e d b y
LD 210 — “An Act to Increase Fairness to Workers’ Compensation Claimants” S p o nso red
by
R e p re s e n ta tiv e
E d it
B e a u lie u
(D -
S e n a te P r e s id e n t C h a rle s P ra y ( D - M illin o c k e t) , R e p r e
P o r tla n d ) , th is b i ll a llo w s a n i n ju r e d w o r k e r to b r i n g
s e n ta tiv e J o h n T e lo w (R -L e w is to n ), a n d R e p r e s e n ta
s u i t in s u p e r i o r C o u r t a g a i n s t h i s e m p l o y e r f o r d i s c r im in a tio n
t iv e D a n G w a d o s k y ( D - F a i r f i e l d ) .
b e c a u s e h e ha s file d f o r w o r k e r s ’ c o m
The p r o d u c t o f t w o y e a r s o f s t u d y b y a S e l e c t C o m
p e n s a t i o n . C o u r t c o s t s , b a c k w a g e s , r e i n s t a t e m e n t to
m itte e , th is b ill w o u ld :
a jo b , a n d p u n itiv e d a m a g e s w o u ld b e a v a ila b le i f the
•
P ro v id e
fo r
a
c o m p re h e n s iv e
re h a b ilita tio n
s y s te m f o r in ju r e d w o rk e rs , o v e rs e e n b y the s ta te w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n
o t h e r w is e u n a b le to p u r c h a s e c o v e ra g e . L i m it i n s u ra n c e ra te
a n c e c o m p a n ie s .
LD 1122 — “An Act to Establish a Competitive State Workers’ Compensation insurance Fund” ( D -P o rtla n d ), th is b ill p r o v id e s th e s a m e as th e a b o v e b ill.
c o s t th e e m p lo y e e c o m p e n s a t io n b e n e fits .
C re ate an a s s ig n e d ris k p r o g r a m fo r e m p lo y e rs
y e a rs as th e
“ T y p ic a lly , s t a t e f u n d s p a y o u t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r p e r c e n ta g e o f p r e im u m s t o w a r d lo s s e s th a n d o in s u r
fu s e d w o r k e r — o r a s lip o f the t o n g u e — c o u ld
LD 1062 — “An Act to Reform the Workers’ Compen sation System
•
s u ra n c e F u n d (to c o m p e te w ith the p riv a te in s u ra n c e ).
a llo w in g
s t a t e m e n t s in d e c i d i n g t h e m e r i t s o f a c a s e . ( I n
c u t b a c k s ” L e m i e u x s a id .
Joseph
o r h e r c a s e . ( N o w , a t t o r n e y s fe e s a r e p a i d b y t h e e m p lo y e r re g a rd le s s ,
R e p e a l the la w p r o h ib it in g use o f an e m p lo y e e 's
th e ir le g is la to rs k n o w th a t th e y o b je c t to p ro p o s e d
LD 1023 — “An Act to Create a Competitive State Fund for Workers’ Compensation Insurance” S p o n s o r e d b y S p e a k e r M a rtin , th e b ill w o u ld e s ta b
p o r t u n i t y t o a t le a s t s e e k c o m p e n s a t i o n ) .
" M S E A m e m b e r s a re c o v e r e d b y t h i s w o r k e r s c o m
P ro v id e fo r a s tu d y o f the c u r r e n t m e d ic a l c o s ts o f th e C o m p e n s a tio n S ystem .
li s h a c o m p e t i t i v e s t a t e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n I n
w h o m a y be u n c e rta in o f th e ir c h a n c e s the o p
w orkers.
•
only i n c a s e s w h e r e t h e e m p l o y e e w i n s h i s
p lo y e r
p ro
p e n s a tio n syste m , a n d s h o u ld n o t be shy a b o u t le ttin g
g a te a n y a p p a r e n t fr a u d b y a n y e m p lo y e e , e m p lo y e r, o r in s u ra n c e c o m p a n y .
t a t i n g i n j u r y a f t e r 12 m o n t h s , a n d a g a i n a f t e r 3 6 m o n th s .
passed on th e e m p lo y e r s ." House
B r e n n a n b ill) .
w o r k e r m a y re c e iv e
Mandatory r e v i e w o f b e n e f i t s p a i d f o r i n c a p a c i
•
b e n e fits m ay r e d u c e c o s ts to in s u ra n c e c o m p a n ie s , is n o g u a r a n t e e t h a t a n y s a v i n g s w i l l b e
the
O ffs e t (re d u c e ) c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e fits b y o th e r b e n e fits p r o v id e d b y th e e m p lo y e r ( s im ila r to the
fr o m the e m p lo y e r, o r fr o m s o c ia l s e c u rity .
M S E A A s s o c ia te D ire c to r J o h n L e m ie u x . " R e d u c in g b u t th e re
e m p l o y e e ’s w e e k l y w a g e .
• Require that loss of a body part (due to work place injury) be compensated equally for all clai mants, regardless of wage earnings.
p e n s a t i o n p a c k a g e s p r e s e n t e d t h i s y e a r is t o a t t e m p t t o r e d u c e c o s t s o n t h e b a c k s o f i n j u r e d w o r k e r s , " s a id
a v a ra g e w e e k ly wage, ra th e r th a n b a s e d o n the
L i m i t y e a r l y i n c r e a s e s in b e n e f i t s t o 5 % .
c o m m is s io n .
In c lu d e d
m w o u ld be d e v e lo p m e n t o f re tra in in g p ro g ra m s fo r w illin g , in ju r e d w o rk e rs , a n d in c e n tiv e s fo r 'e m p lo y e rs
to
p a rtic ip a te
and
h ire
re tra in e d
E s ta b lis h a b a se lu m p s u m
The s a m e o p p o r t u n i t y w o u ld b e p r o v id e d th e e m p lo y e e
b e fo re
the
W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n
S ystem ,
w ith the s a m e r e lie f ( e x c e p t p a y m e n t o f c o u r t c o s ts a n d p u n itiv e da m ag es). A t le a s t 16 o t h e r l e s s e r b i l l s a f f e c t i n g s p e c i f i c w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n i s s u e s h a v e b e e n f ile d . A l l r e l a t e to
w o rkers. •
e m p lo y e e w in s th e case.
fo r p e rm a n e n t im
p a ir m e n t o f th e e m p lo y e e , a t 7 5 % o f th e
State
in d iv id u a l
ite m s
p ro p o se d
in
the
fo re g o in g
p ie c e s o f le g is la tio n w 'th s o m e va ria tio n s .
m a jo r
P a g e Ten
M a in e S ta te r
M arch 1985
L E T T E R S T o T
h e
E
A d d itio n s
A b u s e
a n d
C o rre c tio n s
D ru g
P re v e n tio n
C o n fe re n c e
I
S
Y
• Area III Supervisors are offering a $500 schol arship to chapter members; • Cumberland chapter is also offering a $250 schol arship to members of that chapter. Those wishing to apply for these chapter schol arships may use the regular scholarship application form published in the Stater (Jan. and Feb. issues, get an application from MSEA Hq on request). Deadline is the same for all scholarships (April 13) unless other wise specified, and winners will be decided based on the same standards set for MSEA’s statewide schol arship.
Five (5) Scholarships are being offered by the Board of Directors for MSEA members interested in attend ing the Annual Maine Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention Conference, held at Colby College in Waterville on June 11th and 12th. Workshops will be presented by Maine professionals covering substance abuse in the workplace as well as in the community and family. In terested members should apply no later than May 10th to: Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention Conference Schol arships, % Wanda Ingham, MSEA, 65 State Street, Au gusta, Me. 04330.
Central Aroostook is offering a $300 scholarship to chapter members, not $250, as incorrectly listed last month.
A
O
The 1985 Maine state Alcohol and Drug Abuse Pre vention Conference will be held at Colby College in Waterville on June 11 and 12. The purpose of this conference is to present pre vention concepts, skills, and techniques. It is open to all persons concerned about substance abuse preven tion, including parents, teachers, ministers, business leaders, social workers, medical personnel, and sub stance abuse treatment professions— in fact, all who wish to know more about what they can do to address problems of substance abuse in their communities.
Last month’s Stater listed four MSEA chapters of fering scholarships to chapter members. There are others:
Gentlemen, In regards to your memo of the findings of the Maine Labor Relations Board (in the Game Warden ve hicle use case); thank you for a job well done. I feel that the Brennan Administration and large numbers of our legislative members had an “ax to grind” with Game Wardens and this legal action was taken . . . Game Wardens were put into a situation of either breaking the law or making a large cash outlay for a second car. I was told that the cost average per Game Warden for his/her use of state vehicle on days off was about $500/year. I feel that this fringe benefit is of great value to all of us and I feel that we are entitled to some sort of monetary compensation from September 1983 to January 1985. I encourage MSEA to collect. Thanks again. Game Warden John Whalen
H
M a in e A lc o h o l a n d
d i t o r
The Maine Stater welcomes letters from MSEA members on issues of general concern to the mem bership!
T
C h a p te r S c h o la rs h ip s :
D
U
C
M
B ecau se y o u 'r e a m e m b e r of th e M a in e State E m p lo y e e s A ssociation, y o u c a n sav e m o n e y o n y o u r a u to in s u ra n c e b y c o m p a rin g costs rig h t in y o u r o w n h o m e . T h e M SEA A u to P la n o ffe rs y o u s e c u rity a n d sav in g s in o n e a ttra c tio n pack ag e: M o n e y - s a v in g r a t e s b a s e d o n y o u r a s s o c i a ti o n 's b u y i n g p o w e r . 2 4 - h o u r n a t i o n w i d e c la i m s e r v ic e . C o v e r a g e t h a t 's p e r s o n a l i z e d t o y o u r i n s u r a n c e n e e d s , b u t c o s ts y o u le s s .
A
O
N
N
S
E
A
V
Y
I n s u r a n c e t h a t w o n 't b e c a n c e l le d b e c a u s e o f c la im s , a c c i d e n t s o r a g e . S h o p a n d C o m p a re S end fo r a free q u o ta tio n re q u e s t fo rm today. T h e re 's n o o b ligation, a n d y o u 'll h a v e a q u o ta tio n in y o u r h a n d s th a t sh o u ld c o n v in c e y o u th a t th e M SEA A u to P la n is th e rig h t ch o ice for y o u . O r sh o p b y p h o n e b y calling 1 - 8 0 0 - 3 2 2 - 0 3 9 5 o r 7 7 4 - 1 5 3 8 in P o rtla n d . umimmtmnby: AMERICAN #11 f^INTEFNAnCNAL r Wm Wcompanies
m s e a m a in e s ta te e m p lo y e e s a s s o c ia tio n □ Y e s - s e n d m y fre e q u o ta tio n re q u e s t rig h t aw ay . N a m e ___________________________________________ _________ A d d r e s s ______________________________________________ _— C i t y ________________________________ S t a t e ____________Z ip M y p o lic y e x p i r e s ----------------------------------------------------------M ail to M SEA A u to P la n , 8 3 5 F o re st Ave, P o rtla n d , M a in e 04103.
E
March 1985
Page Eleven
Maine Stater
MSEA MEMBERS AT WORK
DOT BRIDGE WORKERS . BRUNSWICK T his M arch, the DOT b rid g e crew in B ru n sw ick began an 8-week p ro je c t to restore the old T opsham B ru n sw ick B ridge, re p la cin g old beam s w ith new. The b rid ge is used fo r car tra ffic and at an upper level by tra in s crossing the A n d ro s c o g g in River. MSEA paid a M arch 20 v isit to ta lk w ith brid g e w o rk ers and take a look at the job. S andblaster C larence H att and B ridge M aintenance W orker II Steve Hill were w o rk in g o ut over the river in an open place w here the b rid g e flo o r beam s had been rem oved. A w h ite life buoy attached to a long rope lay nearby as a safety p re ca u tio n , but both men w orked unco n ce rn e d ly. "T h is b rid g e gets real heavy Bath Iro n w o rke rs tra f fic m o rn in g and n ig h t,” said crew leader Brian S w ift w hen he arrived at the w o rk s ite a few m inutes later. "T h ey w a n t it open as soon as p o ssib le .” The crew began u n lo ad in g fre sh ly creosoted beams fro m a tru c k and ca rryin g them tow a rd the exposed c e n ter of the bridge. It was co ld and sunny th a t day, b u t brid g e w o rke rs are used to being out in all kinds of w eather, in c lu d in g snow , and o cca sio na lly p o u rin g rain. T h a t’s the job.
DOT crew at work on Brunswick-Topsham bridge
Brian Swift: "We’re very safety-con scious, right from the start." Unloading the new bridge beams
Bridge maintenance worker Steve Hill
Working out over the water
Page Twelve
Maine Stater
March 1985
LABOR HISTORY MSEA will be running a series of labor history arti cles from time-to-time in the Stater, starting this month. In 1981-82, the Stater featured a labor history series written by Candy Gonzales of Houlton (copies are available from MSEA).
These articles, written by members of the New York State Labor History Association, provide a continuing source of information for this central but often-ne glected feature of U.S. History.
THE LUDLOW STRIKE In September 1913, almost all of Colorado’s 14,000 miners went out on strike. Their demands were simple: fair pay (the average daily take-home pay was $1.68); the right to choose the store they could trade in, where they could live, and the doctor who could treat them; and recognition of their union, the United Mine Workers (UMW). These simple demands were unacceptable to the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company (CFI) which was con trolled by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Although the com pany had anticipated some of the demands — the 8hour day was granted in 1913 — this was done through cold calculation, not through generosity. L. M. Bowers, Chairman of the Board of CFI, wrote, “ I know of no better way than to anticipate demands and do a little better by the men than they would receive if they belonged to the unions. This keeps them in line and reasonably happy.” And he hoped it would keep them out of the UMW. Who were these reasonably happy men? Many had been brought to the coal fields a decade earlier to break a strike by Scotch and Welsh miners. They were mainly Southern and Eastern Europeans, speaking 27 languages: Greeks, Montenegrans, Croats, Bulgari ans, Serbs, Italians, and Austrians — veterans of the Balkan Wars, nationalities that had fought for centu ries and would soon fight again. The union’s first task was to organize them. Contrary to the American Fed eration of labor’s practice, which was to send out only
On Monday, April 20, 1914, Major Pat Hamrock, a former Denver bartender, called Louis Tikas, the tent colony leader at Ludlow to arrange a meeting. Hamrock then telephoned Lieutenant Linderfelt, a former CFI mine guard, and told him to ‘‘put the baby in the buggy and bring it along.” The baby was the company machine gun. As Tikas and Hamrock met, National Guard re inforcements arrived. The miners, fearing an attack, ran for their hidden arms and began to deploy. No one knows who fired the first shot, but a gun battle broke out. Women and children quickly hid in the pits dug underneath the tents. As the day wore on, casualties mounted. Machine gun bullets shredded the tents and ricocheted off the iron stoves. Eventually some of the tents caught fire. The Guardsmen claimed that the heavy iron stoves overturned by the bullets caused the fire. In contrast, there is testimony from a railroad brakeman who swore he saw a uniformed man running a blazing torch up the tent sides. Regardless of the cause, the results of the battle were soon known. Two women and 11 children suffo cated to death in a pit beneath a burning tent. Louis Tikas was captured by the Guard. A Springfield rifle was broken over his head before he was shot. Elevenyear-old Frank Synder was killed while getting a drink of water for his baby sister. The survivors scattered to the hills to continue the shooting war which ended when President Wilson sent in federal troops to
E n g lis h - s p e a k in g o r g a n iz e r s , th e U M W u s e d m e m b e r s
d is a r m
of these ethnic groups like the Croat Mike Livada or Louis Tikas, a Greek.
The strike was defeated with blood and fire. A feder al commission heard evidence on the episode and concluded that the miners had been denied their rights, were provoked by strikebreakers, and bruta lized by the troops. The United States Commission on Industrial Relations recommended that to end class violence industrial monopolies would have to be con trolled, wealth redistributed through taxation, and workers’ rights to free speech and union organization protected. Needless to say, the recommendations were ignored by the Wilson administration. In the meantime, John D. Rockefeller instituted a personnel plan which encouraged company-domi nated unions. Only in 1933 did victory finally come to the miners at Ludlow when the UMW and the company negotiated their first real agreement. Today, a monument erected by the United Mine Workers stands in Ludlow to honor the memory of the men, women, and children who ‘‘lost their lives in free dom’s cause” at Ludlow, Colorado on that fateful Monday.
Organizers traveled in teams, one in the open, the other undercover. While the open man carried out the usual organizing techniques, the undercover man would seek work at the mine, expressing anti-union sentiments. If this plan worked, the undercover man would falsely label the anti-union miners as union men. The company would then fire these potential scabs and they would be replaced by carefully coached union miners. Only the company would never catch on. Even if an organizing campaign wasn’t suc cessful, the seeds of unionism would be planted. The company fought back. Organizers were beaten and jailed by the CFI’s private police force. When the strike began, the miners were evicted from their com pany-owned homes, but about 9,000 were quickly moved into tent colonies by the UMW. The Colorado National Guard surrounded the tent colonies. The stage was set for tragedy.
b o th s id e s .
For Your Information: For
Maternity Leave and Income Protection six weeks for a normal delivery; therefore, Maternity Leave and you would receive benefits for approxi MSEA members who wish to use maternity leave from state service should know the follow ing information: Q: How many weeks of benefits will I receive while I am on maternity leave? A: Maternity is treated the same as any other disability. There is a 14-day waiting period, then benefits begin the 15th day. Your waiting period starts on the date of deliv ery; about a month from the first date of disability, you will receive a fifteen day pay ment. Union Mutual and the doctor allow
mately 4 weeks. Q: Am I reimbursed for the two-week waiting period? A: No. Q: How will it affect my period of income pro tection eligibility if I have medical compli cations prior to or after delivery? A: MSEA would need a written statement from your doctor indicating the specific medical complication.