CWW Protests Secret Bank Settlement

February 1, 1982

By Edie Vonn

"We believe Region V has been targeted precisely because it has led the way in aggressive enforcement of affirmative action”.

-Carol Kurtz, Director, Cleveland Women Working

Staff members at Cleveland Women Working (CWW) headquarters were stunned on Monday, February 1, to learn that the Labor Department had withdrawn its racial and sex discrimination suit against National City Bank (NCB) in return for the bank's agreement to increase its affirmative action program. CWW had not been informed that negotiations between the Labor Department and the bank were in progress, despite the fact that CWW is the third-party litigant, named in the suit as 'intervenors".

First word of the settlement came from angry NCB employees, members of CWW, who called the office to report that a bulletin announcing the agreement was circulating in the bank. Within minutes, reporters were calling CWW. "We were caught offguard," said Kurtz. Terming it a sell-out deal, CWW staff viewed the secret negotiations and settlement as further indication that government under Ronald Reagan will not enforce legislation which protects the rights of women and minorities.

The National City Bank suit is one of the largest brought by the Labor Department. NCB was brought to the attention of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) by CWW in 1979, on behalf of a group of members who are employees of the bank. After conducting its own investigation, the Labor Department issued a finding of discrimination and filed suit in May, 1980. The issues in the finding were the bank's hiring and promotion practices. Preparation of the case began vigorously in 1980, under the supervision of OFCCP Regional Director Jay Sauls in the Region V office in Chicago.

1980 was the last year of the Jimmy Carter presidency. When the Reagan administration came into office in 1981, activities in the enforcement agencies began to slow down. At President Reagan's first press conference, the tone was set by his statement: "This administration is going to be dedicated to equality. I think we've made great progress in the civil rights field. I think there are some things, however, that may not be as useful as they once were, or that may even be distorted...such as some affirmative action programs becoming quota systems".

By the end of Reagan's first year, equal employment agency budgets had been cut, new directives delayed decisions, and personnel in the enforcement agencies were transferred. Jay Sauls, the outspoken black administrator of Region V, was "reassigned" within the Chicago office, and replaced by Jack Bluestein. Reassignments in the two OFCCP offices in Cleveland included eight women (six of whom are black) to other offices, some out of state. Most did not accept out-of-town assignments.

One week before the NCB settlement was announced, the Wall Street Journal reported that women's groups, including CWW, were threatening to sue the OFCCP office for its sluggish enforcement of affirmative action programs. Ellen Shong, Reagan's appointee to lead the OFCCP, was holding up big proposed back-pay awards while reviewing the job-bias remedy, the groups charged. Although Shong termed these "errors of perception," it is a fact that Region V, which includes Cleveland, has suffered almost a 50 percent cut in staff; compared to 8 percent cuts agency-wide. It is CWW's contention

{

about 1

COPOT XOM .0.1

that the Department of Labor may be intentionally sabotaging its own cases.

February 3, 1982

"No comment...no comment...no comment...." -Andy Hoffman, attorney, Solicitor's Office, Labor Department

After the agreement was announced, the Labor Department instructed their officials in Cleveland to make no comment about the case. Andy Hoffman, one of the three signers of the agreement, referred all questions to T. Timothy Ryan, solicitor in the Washington office. (Ryan, asked about the NCB case as late as December, 1981, claimed no knowledge of the case.)

Hoffman, contacted on February 3, was asked how long it took to reach agreement with National City Bank. He said, "No comment".

Hoffman was asked why CWW, third-party litigant in the suit, was notified neither about negotiations nor that settlement had been reached. He replied, "No comment".

He was asked if it is true that he is the only attorney for the preparation of cases and bringing them to trial, and had been denied resources of staff and money. Hoffman paused a moment before saying, "No comment".

CWW claims that Hoffman had been denied the money and help he needed to prepare the case. "The government case was very inadequately prepared,' says Kurtz. "We were trying to get a congressional hearing to investigate the lack of resources". Kurtz said Hoffman was denied travel expenses,

LOCAL NEWS

money to obtain depositions, and funds to pay expert witness' fees. Expert witnesses have refused further services because they have not been paid for work already performed.

"The employees of the bank cannot get a fair hearing if the government doesn't do its job right," said Kurtz. "CWW will continue lobbying efforts to get the message to Congress and to the public that these delaying tactics are going on".

February 10, 1982

"We are your adversaries".

-Jack Bluestein, Director of Region V, OFCCP

A group of twenty staff and members of CWW met with Jack Bluestein, Regional Director of Region V, on February 10 at the Cleveland OFCCP offices in the Federal Building. Bluestein, who at first refused to meet with the group because it was "too large," finally agreed to talk with them, provided only five CWW representatives spoke.

CWW had asked for an interview with Howard Morley, director of the Cleveland OFCCP office. When the group arrived with a large contingent from the news media, they were met instead by Bluestein, who said that as senior Labor Department official, it was his responsibility to meet with them, not Morley's. It was learned later that Morley had been instructed to stay away from the area while CWW people were in the building.

Andrea Gundersen, staff member of CWW, described Bluestein's responses as "simply incredi(continued on page 10)

Ashtabula Settlement Disappoints

By Cheryl L. Burg

On February 8, the nurses of Ashtabula General Hospital voted for a contract proposal which settled the longest nurses' strike in the history of the U.S.

The 19-month strike ended in mixed victories for both sides. The hospital won a contract that does not require Ohio Nurses Association (ONA) member-

UNFR TO RNS.

ship, and gives member-nurses the option to drop membership after one year. The nurses won a 12 percent pay hike retroactive to May of 1981, along with a 9 percent pay increase to follow in May of this year. The nurses also won reinstatement to the jobs and shifts they held when the strike began.

This was the same contract proposal the striking nurses had voted down on January 4. Apparently discord had grown among the strikers with the result that the proposal was accepted by a narrow margin.

The lack of a union-security clause, a key issue strongly defended by most of the strikers at one time, was a severe blow to the ONA. While it is under-

standable that conditions for the strikers were unduly exacting after several months, it is still a disappointment to watch the efforts of a state-wide coalition defeated by the change of conscience of a few.

It should prove interesting to watch sentiments evolve around a similar situation: the PATCO (air traffic controllers) strike. Will the defeatist attitudes of union members invade the PATCO strikers as well?

We should be conscious of the labor struggles around the country that inevitably will affect us all. Keep in mind the settlement of the largest anti-trust suit against AT&T that favored the interests of a multi-billion dollar enterprise now legally unrestrained in its efforts to monopolize the telecommunications industry. Even more recently, the Department of Labor, now headed by Reaganite Raymond Donovan, reversed its position on a discrimination suit against National City, Bank of Cleveland that was potentially worth $15 million in back pay to the victims of discrimination.

It is difficult to believe that all these events are coincidental. Our current administration is obviously in favor of big business interests and vehemently opposed to social programs that, in the past twenty years, have exhibited government conscience for the underprivileged (i.e., handicapped, poor or minority peoples).

In the face of this attack, it is absolutely necessary for all of us who believe in the right to determine the conditions of our work lives to stand even closer together in a unified and firm resistance. Our country's shift to more capitalistic policies, at the expense of a very large and visible majority, should not sway us in its wake. Instead, it should strengthen our beliefs and commitments to a healthy, solvent, and most importantly, democratic country in which to live.

[80] @mginyqu,February-March, 1982/What She Wants/Page 3