Labor Dept. seeks to gut 'homework' laws

Scan page 5

Essential reading for today's labor activists SOCIALIST ACTION MARCH 1989 The government is carrying out a campaign to intensify the exploitation of women workers. At the same time that attacks have been stepped up against a woman's right to choose abortion, industrial homework is being legalized in the garment industry--where 90 percent of workers are women.

During the past month, the Department of Labor (DOL) has been holding hearings on whether to lift the 47-year ban on production of women's apparel in the home. This action would be the final stage of what Labor Secretary Ann Dore McLaughlin calls "a two-tier approach" to legalizing homework in all fields of the garment industry.

In November, the department lifted bans on homework in the five other garment industries where it had been prohibited: gloves and mittens, embroidery, buttons and buckles, handkerchiefs, and some jewelry. The prohibition against work at home on knitted outerwear had been lifted in 1984.

Manufacture of most clothing in the home was outlawed in 1942 because the government had found it impossible to enforce the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) without the work being centralized in factories.

Studies conducted at the time of the passage of the FLSA and ever since have consistently shown that whenever homework has been legal in a given industry, there have been widespread violations of wage and hours laws as well as child-labor laws.

At the 1979 New York State hearings on industrial homework, one woman testified that she was paid $2.50 for a blouse that took two hours to make and $5 for a shirt that also took two hours to make. At that time the minimum wage was $2.90 per hour (which was already too low!).

More recently, a farmer's wife described how she lost money sewing clothes at home over an eight-month period. The money she earned working fulltime did not cover her travel expenses to pick up and deliver the work and the cost of the new sewing machine she had to buy.

When homeworkers have children, they are frequently enlisted to help meet production quotas. Often young children end up using scissors, needles, or other sharp instruments. The time they spend working is usually taken away from their study time or--according to some witnesses--the time needed to sleep.

As an alternative to the prohibition of industrial homework, the DOL proposes a certification system that ostensibly would make it easier to enforce the provisions of the FLSA. This system has not worked in any of the industries in which homework is legalized. A minority of employers register with the DOL and of those, most are guilty of some violation of the FLSA but are not prosecuted.

One of the problems with enforcement of homework regulations is that the government usually only investigates an employer when a complaint is filed. But all the evidence shows that homeworkers rarely complain. Many of them are undocumented immigrants who fear deportation. Many of them fear that they will be punished for putting their children to work or for tax evasion.

Also, since homeworkers are isolated from each other, it is very difficult for them to organize themselves into unions to defend their rights and working conditions against attacks by the employer or the government. Without daily contact with other workers in their industry, they have no way of knowing if their working conditions are exceptional or not.

"Worker-or bosses'-flexibility?"

The main rationale advanced for legalizing homework is that it enables mothers to work at home so that they can be with their children. Allan McMillan, Deputy Assistant Labor Secretary in charge of enforcing homework regulations, has said that "Clearly, the demographics show that worker flexibility is something we need to achieve."

Clearly, McMillan has never tried to work and take care of young children at the same time! Most mothers today know what it's like to work all day and take care of the children at night. Imagine working and simultaneously taking care of the children all of your waking hours! This isn't flexibility for the benefit of the worker; it's flexibility for the benefit of the employer.

What is needed is not "worker flexibility" but free childcare as part of the public-school system, adequate parental leave, and 1431 reproductive freedom. It does not do children any good to have their mother at home when she has to work 16-hour days at below minimum wage-especially if she needs the help of her children just to meet production quotas.

The International Ladies Garment Workers Union, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, and other unions are opposed to the legalization of homework. Not only will organizing these workers become more difficult; it will act to lower wage and safety standards in other industries as well.

The Department of Labor's campaign to legalize homework is directed against women who (because of a lack of social services and union representation) are easily victimized. This is part and parcel of the employers' and the government's attempts to increase capitalist profits by sacrificing the living standards of American working people.

This pamphlet by labor veteran Jake Cooper examines the main lessons of the 1985-86 strik against Geo. A. Hormel and Co. It focuses on the role of the company, the government, the courts, and the labor bureaucrat in helping to break the strike. It also examines the crucial questions of strike strategy employed by the P-9 leadership.

Order now! $1.50 plus $.85 for handling. Socialist Action, 3435 Army St., suite 308, San Francisco, CA 94110.

Scan page 6

Socialist Action lawsuit featured in ACLU news The ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit on Jan. 19 in U.S. District Court on behalf of Socialist Action, a small political party headquartered in San Francisco, demanding that the party not be required to disclose the names of its campaign contributors.

According to ACLU-NC, cooperating attorney Mark White, who is litigating the case along with cooperating attorney Anna Rossi and ACLU-NC staff counsel Alan Schlosser, "Because of its origins, size, political aims and activities, Socialist Action and its members have a genuine and reasonably grounded fear that party members and contributors would suffer threats, harassment and reprisals if their identities were to be publicly disclosed."

Socialist Action was formed in 1983 when its original members left the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) after a dispute over On March 28, a federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments for a Temporary Restraining Order preventing prosecution of the 1988 Socialist Action election campaign committee for their refusal to disclose the names and addresses of contributors.

The following article appeared in January-February 1989 ACLU news, the publication of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC). political goals. In an earlier lawsuit, it was proven that the SWP and its members were subjected to FBI infiltration, surveillance and harassment for many years.

Since 1984, Socialist Action has run candidates in various local elections; in November 1988 plaintiff Joseph Ryan ran for the Board of Supervisors, gaining 1 percent of the vote, and plaintiff Sylvia Weinstein ran for the Board of Education, gaining 3 percent of the vote.

California's Political Reform Act of 1974 requires that controlled campaign committees of candidates for local elective office file disclosure statements with the local registrar of voters which identify all persons who make financial contributions of over $100. The required information includes the contributors' full name, address, occupation, and employer.

Exemption

However, the campaign committees of Socialist Action have declined to provide this information based on the understanding that they have a right of exemption under the First Amendment of the Constitution as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1982 case of Brown v. Socialist Workers 74 Campaign Committee (Ohio).

The party withheld the disclosure information in elections spanning several years, and the withholding was never questioned or challenged.

Just prior to the 1988 election, however, the San Francisco District Attorney demanded the contributors' information from plaintiff Joni Jacobs, treasurer of the Ryan and Weinstein Campaign Committee. Despite a written request for exemption from Jacobs, the District Attorney threatened criminal prosecution against Jacobs, Ryan and Weinstein if they did not comply.

According to Ryan, "The effect of the DA holding over us the threat of prosecution can only have a dampening effect on the ability of small parties-including socialist, Black or labor parties, for example-to function effectively.

"Many people who would contribute to such parties would be deterred from doing so for fear of harassment or reprisals.

"We do not hide our ideas or what we stand for. Our intent is to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to our campaigns," Ryan said.

The suit charges that Socialist Action members and contributors have good reason to fear reprisal. According to attorney Rossi, "Not only is there a public record of official harassment and persecution waged against the SWP (including individuals who are now in Socialist Action) by law enforcement agencies, there is also evidence that the FBI and the San Francisco Police Department surveilled and harassed many socialist and dissident political organizations with whom Socialist Action has formed political coalitions in this city.

"In addition, there have been repeated instances of private hostility and harassment experienced by Socialist Action members, including assaults and death threats," Rossi said.

History of spying

Plaintiff Weinstein was a member of the SWP from 1944 until 1983, when she helped found Socialist Action.

"In all the movements I have been involved in, from Fair Play for Cuba, to the antiwar movement to the women's movement, I have been harassed by the FBI," Weinstein said.

"They came to jobs that I was on and tried to question me, they came to my home and in a very loud voice said 'This is the FBI'-all my neighbors in the building knew about it—the janitor told me they even looked through my garbage.

"They even spied on meetings of the women's movement that we held in Glide Memorial Church in 1969 and 1970.

"So my experience has been that they have been involved with spying on me personally and that they have not stopped any of this at all," Weinstein charged.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. It also seeks a Temporary Restraining Order and an injunction preventing the Registrar of Voters from requiring disclosure of Socialist Action contributors and preventing the District Attorney from commencing any criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action against the party for either past or future refusal to disclose the names of its campaign contributors.

----- pull-quotes -----

p.o STRIKE Pokt From

A bajance- sheetnot the militamt ist rugigle cagamist thormel aby Jake . Cooper»