Published by the New York Labor Committee Against Apartheid c/o CWA Local 1180, 6 Harrison St ., New York 10013

CoE

)4.

Union members in Cape Town rally against South Africa's repressive newLabor Relations Act.

S.A. Labor Law Aims at Crushing Unions

Closing the Loopholesin NYC SanctionsOn November 3, 1988, a new bill

was introduced in the City Council totoughen existing sanctions barring NewYork City from doing business in SouthAfrica and occupied Namibia . The newamendments build on Local Laws 19and 81, passed in 1985 and 1986 with amajor push from the labor movement.Those laws prohibit the City from con-tracting with or purchasing from com-panies with operations or investmentsin South Africa and Namibia.

The new bill seeks to close loop-holes that companies have used to cir-cumvent the spirit and intent of sanc-tions . It also toughens the enforcementprocess . There are three key provisions :

(1) the new bill bars the City from con-tracting with companies that continueoperations in South Africa and Namibiathorugh licensing and franchiseagreements;(2)it prevents the City from purchasingfrom companies operating in SouthAfrica and Namibia via third-party ven-dors or subcontractors;(3) it provides for a designated Cityagency to keep records of corporatecompliance with the law and to make anannual report monitoring the law.

Adding Labor Rights

The NY LCAA and its sponsors im-mediately endorsed the bill, but calledfor a further amendment to protect thelabor rights of South African and Na-mibian workers as companies pull outof the two countries to meet sanctionsrequirements . In a statement of supportto the City Council, union leaderspointed out:

"Our brothers and sisters in SouthAfrican and occupied Namibia, work-ing under a racist forced labor system,have borne the main burdens of apart-

Continued on back page

On September 1, the South Africangovernment imposed a sweeping newLabor Relations Act aimed at strippingaway most of the legal rights blackworkers have gained in the past tenyears . The new law poses a serious hur-dle for the South African labor move-ment by drastically raising the potentialpenalties for worker militancy.

The Labor Relations Act virtuallyoutlaws the right to strike legally andremoves protections against unfair dis-missals . It bans public picketing, sym-pathy strikes, wildcats, and secondaryboycotts . It holds unions involved in astrike or job action financially liable forany losses incurred by the company.

The law also allows employers toviolate seniority rights in lay-offs . Itallows employers to recognize multipleunions at a workplace, even where oneunion has majority membership, amove intended to smash the union shopand re-entrench racially segregatedunions .

Union Protests

Labor opposition to the measureshas been fierce . In June, prior to theAct's passage, more than two millionblack workers staged a three-day na-tional strike to protest the bill . It was the

Continued on page 2

One Person,One Vote

On September 22, the South Afri-an government arrested over 100 tradeunionists and community activists toblock the convening of a national stra-tegy session in Cape Town opposingsham municipal elections. The meet-ing, itself banned by the government,had been called by COSATU forSeptember 24. It was to bring together72 anti-apartheid organizations to forma broad united front around the princi-ple, "one person, one vote ."The municipal elections were set upto ratify the installation of government-appointed town councils in the blacktownships. They have been a focus ofprotest by the United Democratic Frontsince its formation . When the UDF and16 other opposition groups werebanned from all activity last February,COSATU took up a leadership role inthe protest, as one of the few organiza-tions still able to function openly.

Despite the banning of the Septem-ber meeting, opposition groups wereoverwhelmingly successful in boycot-ting the municipal elections this Oct-ober. Only 10% of the eligible blackvoters (3% of the voting age population)showed up at the polls, under condi-tions of significant intimidation by thepolice, employers and the government.Obviously, the latest town councils haveno mandate from the people .

Mayekiso UpdateThe treason trial of South African

labor leader Moses Mayekiso entered itstenth month this November with Broth-er Mayekiso taking the stand . He is ac-cused of undermining the state for hisleadership role in building communityorganizations in the black township ofAlexandra . Charged with Mayekiso arehis brother Mzwa.nele, Paul Tshabalala,Richard Mdakane, and Obed Bapela.

In early cross-examination, theprosecution has been focusing chieflyon Mayekiso's labor activities as GeneralSecretary of the National Union ofMetalworkers (NUMSA) . The govern-ment's "evidence" includes Mayekiso'sparticipation in international solidaritycampaigns calling for disinvestmentand the release of detainees . Mayekisoaffirmed his support for these positions.

An observer noted that the court-room has been packed with NUMSAmembers from the Haggie-Rand Co.who are currently in a "dispute" withtheir employer. Cross-examination ofMayekiso will continue through

November and the trial may go on formany more weeks. The trial, which hasgained international attention, tests therights of union activists to join thepolitical struggle, and the rights of blacktownship residents to organize for theirown welfare.

Letters to demand the release ofMoses Mayekiso and all other politicalprisoners should be directed to SouthAfrican Ambassador Dr. Pieter Koor-nof, Embassy of South Africa, 3051Massachusetts Ave ., Washington, D.C.2008.

Metalworkers WinThe National Union of Metalwork-

ers (NUMSA) proved this August thatblack South African workers are notready to give in to the rising tide ofemployer intimidation . On August 4,NUMSA led 31,000 workers at over 180factors on a national strike against themetal industry and its employer federa-tion, SEIFSA.

The strike lasted two weeks andended in a victory settlement for NUM-SA. Although SEIFSA itself did notagree to union wage demands, 120 of itsemployer affiliates broke ranks andsettled above SEIFSAs offer. SEIFSA didrecognize NUMSA as the principalunion in the industrial council, recog-nized May Day and Soweto Day as holi-days, agreed to wage restructuring, andconceded to the arbitration of racediscrimination cases.

Labor Law CrackdownContinued from front page

largest industrial action in SouthAfrican history, conducted in the face ofthreats and violence from employersand the government . Participation inthe stay-away was especially and sur-prisingly strong in the Natal, whereworkers had often been divided by pro-vocateurs. Both major labor federations,COSATU and NACTU, joined in callingfor the action.

Employers were shocked by the ef-fectiveness of the stay-away and overthe summer entered talks with COSATUabout revising the bill. Clearly, they sawthe risk of increased industrial strife ifthe bill passed . But in the end, theemployers associations capitulated tothe government, accepted the new Actand refused to negoiate with the unionsto counteract its worst aspects .

Since passage of the Act, COSATUhas continued protest actions, in-cluding a march in downtown Johan-nesburg, factory demonstrations andshop steward rallies.

Essentially, the Act means thatlabor relations in South Africa are backto the level of raw confrontation . Themain weapon left to the unions is theirpower to affect production at the plantlevel, forcing employers to negotiatecontracts that override the restrictionsof the new law or face intense disrup-tion. If the unions can continue theirhigh rate of organizing and can keeptheir ranks united, employers will findit too costly to seek remedies under thelaw.

The labor movement has no illu-sions, however–the Act is a major set-back. It throws up a new web of legalbarriers to action . It also inhibits thelabor movement's capability to raisestruggles beyond the plant level

through industy-wide and inter-unionactions . And the Act appears to havelaunched a new employer offensiveagainst the labor movement.

COSATU leader Jai Naidoo com-mented that while strikes have in-creased sharply this Fall, the issues haveshifted from wage demands to defend-ing union recognition and basic rights.In September, 4,000 union workers werelocked out, including 1,500 CCAWUSAmembers at 15 Checkers stores, 1,800steelworkers in NUMSA, and 60 minersin NUM.

International pressure on multina-tionals operating in South Africa maybe crucial to curbing employer attacksand muting the impact of the law. Inearly November, word came via theBritish press that Pepsi-Cola S .A. andthe Food and Commercial WorkersUnion had "agreed that the provisionsof the new Labor Relations Act will notbe used between them."

More than one border was crossed in a moment of solidarity when ACTWUSAleaders Amon Ntuli and John Copelyn (center) rallied support for Latinocemetery workers in Los Angeles, who are organizing with ACTWU.

UNION TO UNION:ACTWUSA TOURS

AMERICAAmon Ntuli is a South African tex-

tile worker, a shop steward at theFrametex mill in Durban . Most morn-ings he gets up at 3:30 a .m., catches abus and then a train, in order to reachhis plant for the day shift at 6 :30 a . m . Heusually winds up his work around 4 :30p.m., unless there's an evening unionmeeting.

Then it's another three hour trekback to his apartment in Umlaza, theblack township outside of Durban . Hiswife and three children live another twohours away, in the Kwazulu reservation.He sees them on weekends, twice amonth . Because he is black, he cannotget housing with his family near theplant. That is only one injustice amongthe many experienced by black textileworkers under apartheid.

Amon Ntuli joined a union to fightthis system. Today, he is president of theAmalgamated Clothing and TextileWorkers Union of South Africa (ACT-WUSA) . In ACTWUSA, even nationalofficers must be elected shop stewardsand work in their plant.

This October, however, BrotherNtuli's work took him far from Durban.Leaving South Africa for the first time,he attended alabor conference in Japanbefore making a tour across the U.S.with his American counterparts in theAmalgamated Clothing and TextileWorkers (ACTWU).

The American tour by Ntuli, ac-companied by ACTWUSA General Sec-retary John Copelyn, included plantvisits and union forums in Los Angeles,Chicago, Georgia, North Carolina,Washington, D.C. and New York.

One highlight of the trip was avisitwith cemetery workers for the CatholicArchdiocese of Los Angeles, who formany months have been seeking unionrecognition through ACTWU. The cem-etary workers are Mexican, Chicano,and Salvadoran, receiving minimal paywithout basic benefits . The Archdio-cese has claimed they are not realemployees, but religious workers, ex-empt from labor law protection.

Joining the cemetery workers at agraveside ceremony, Ntuli commentedto the press his surprise Americanworkers faced so much employer resis-tance to unionization . He said he wasparticularly amazed the hostile attitude

of the Archdiocese, since the Catholicchurch in Durban was a strong ally ofACTWUSA. In fact, he was writing a let-ter to his own bishop on the situation.Following news coverage of the situa-tion, and an ACTWU campaign thatprompted hundreds of letters of sup-port, the Archbishop of Los Angeleshas agreed to set a union election.

At their stop in New York, Ntuli andCopelyn spoke more about thesimilarities in labor conditions here andin South Africa, addressing an LCAAforum of 50 unionists . The two noted thatapartheid's repressive new labor rela-tions act (see front page) closely modelsthe pattern of "legalistic, scientificmanagement" now used in the U .S. andBritain . The common idea is to tieunions up in legal procedures anddisputes at every turn, inhibiting directaction and shop floor organization.

For example, the new South Africanbill outlaws wildcat strikes, sympathystrikes and secondary boycotts, rightswhich American workers largely lostunder Taft-Hartley legislation in 1948.These types of job action have beenpowerful tools in building South Africanunions in this decade as they were for theCIO in the 1930's and '0s.

Ntuli noted that at his Frametex plantof 6,500 workers, there have been anaverage of five work stoppages a weekto settle basic grievances, wage disputesor unfair dismissals . In addition, ACT-WUSA and other unions have used sym-pathy strikes and mass stay-aways overmajor issues like union recognition, theright to vote, and the police detention ofunion activists.

When asked how ACTWUSAplanned to respond to the new act'ssweeping restrictions, Secretary Copelynreplied that they would have a three-part strategy. First, they will exert directpressure on employers to re-negotiatecontracts at the local plant level which

override the worst features of the law.The act includes an attack on seniorityrights during lay-offs and an attack onthe union shop and majority represen-tation, along with the anti-strikeprovisions.

Second, since the new law alsoholds unions liable for damages orprofit losses incurred by the employerduring an unlawful stike, unions don'tintend to accumulate assets . They willput their resources into organizing in-stead of big treasuries.

Third, ACTWUSA and COSATUwill continue to promote national andinternational protests against the laborrelations act, which violates basic tenetsof the United Nations ILO charter. BothNtuli and Copelyn emphasized how im-portant worldwide labor support hasbeen in keeping up pressure on em-ployers and raising the costs ofrepression.

The ACTWUSA tour broke theground for concrete acts of solidarity aswell . While in the States, Ntuli andCopelyn met with labor experts on howto establish worker-owned coopera-tives . They are interested in negotiatingspecial funds with major employers tohelp laid-off workers begin their owncottage industries . They also met withUnited Farm Workers to discuss strate-gies for agricultural organizing . ACT-WUSA would like to sign up the 100,000cotton workers who now supply SouthAfrica's textile industry.

ACTWU and ACTWUSA plan fur-ther joint activity, in what is becominga model for international labor cooper-ation. Next year the two unions hope tolaunch an annual program of exchangevisits by worker delegations . ACTWUSAalso hopes to send two organizers toparticipate in an upcoming ACTWUorganizing campaign in the U.S.Employers beware : these folks knowhow to build a union .

CWIU workers protest the removal of their plant to the homeland ofBoputhatswana, where the union is not recognized.

S.A . ChemicalWorkers VisitAmerican unions had a chance to

learn more about the impacts of disin-vestment and sanctions on workers inSouth Africa during the visit thisSeptember of a delegation from theSouth African Chemical Workers In-dustrial Union (CWIU) . The delegationincluded CWIU President CalvinMakgaleng, Secretary Treasurer RonaldMofokeng, and lead organizer MuziButhelezi.

The three leaders made a week-long visit to New York and Washington,following a stopover with trade union-ists in Germany.

In the course of their visit, the dele-gation seemed impressed by the knowl-edge American unionists had of condi-tions in South Africa and by their will-ingness to offer support and concreteassistance. In turn, the CWIU im-pressed their American labor contactswith the complexities of disinvestmentissues, particularly the problem that"the more companies go, the more theystay."

Sham Disinvestment:Sterling Drug

The Chemical Workers cited thecase of Sterling Drug ., an Americanmultinational that has maintained asubsidiary in South Africa, SterlingDrug, S .A ., located in Durban andrepresented by CWIU. Sterling DrugInc. was bought out by Eastman KodakCorporation last year and sold its sharesin Sterling Drug S .A. to a South Africancompany, Adcock-Ingram. SterlingDrug Inc . was then removed from thelist of U.S. companies still doing busi-ness in South Africa, as is Kodak, tomuch acclaim.

However, Sterling Drug hadgranted Sterling Drug S .A./Adcock theright to produce and market Sterling'sbrand-name medications, includingPanado, Compral and Sterns Pine Tar.Under this arrangement, the American-based company is assured a steadyprofit from South Africa, while tech-nically complying with existing sanc-tions laws.

In July 1987, prior to the SterlingDrug pull-out, the CWIU had sent a let-ter requesting the company disclose itsdisinvestment plans and negotiate withthe union over standards for possibledisinvestment. Similar requests were

sent to 40 other multinationals, whichemployed CWIU members and whichwere the object of disinvestmentcampaigns.

The union demands included jointnegotiations with all multi-nationalsorganized by CWIU, one year's notice ofdisinvestment, full disclosure of assetsand plans, good faith negoitiations oversuch plans, a guarantee of no new con-ditions of employment by new employ-ers, and worker-controlled trust fundscreated from the profits made throughdisinvestment . None of the companiesagreed. Two subsqequently disinvestedwithout informing the union . New man-agement then refused to recognize exist-ing union contracts.

Sterling Drug's response was todeny any plans to pull out of SouthAfrica . The union only learned of thesale to Adcock-Ingram after the fact.The new Sterling Drug S .A./Adcockthen refused to meet with the CWIU todiscuss workers' rights, such as sever-ance pay, the integrity of benefit andpension funds, and the stability of col-lective bargaining agreements underthe new ownership.

CWIU appealed to the IndustrialCourt to intervene. At the hearing, Sterl-ing Drug S.A./Adcock claimed that nodisinvestment had occurred, only thatthe company had changed sole share-holders . They argued that the unionshould seek relief from the U .S. parentSterling Drug Inc., which on its partclaimed to be disinvested and no longerinvolved . The union was trapped in anobvious Catch-22, on top of which the

government turned down its appeal.Sterling Drug, U.S.A . and S.A., havehad their cake and eaten it, too.

Better SanctionsThe Chemical Workers are asking

American unionists to apply pressureon Sterling Drug here. The LCAA is de-veloping a two-part campaign aroundthe issue. We are involving union mem-bers in City hospitals to monitor Sterl-ing Drug Inc . purchases, while at thesame time pressing the City Council topass comprehensive sanctions whichbar the City from doing business withcompanies that hold licensing and fran-chise agreements in South Africa (seefront page).

The Chemical Workers are also ask-ing American unionists to heed the les-sons of Sterling Drug and not allow U.S.companies to use disinvestment as acamouflage for reneging on unionrights and benefits . The CWIU stronglysupports the inclusion of labor rightsclauses in all sanctions or disinvestmentactions, as does its parent federation,COSATU.

The CWIU leaders pointed out theneed for direct communication betweenU.S. anti-apartheid campaigns seekingdisinvestment and South African un-ions representing the affected workers.By sharing information and developingcommon strategy, both South Africanand American unionists can more effec-tively expose sham disinvestment,sanctions violations, labor rightsabuses, and instances where disinvest-ment is a cover for union-busting .

:::vr::rr:rrl'r:::r::ll:r:::vlr::: r-::::;.~:::: :::.

r:•r'^ir'•r'• ~:~'':i::~{'{:}: { •{:;}::::'{ C : ~. :::::::::•::•:: ~:;:::v:}:•}:: :v}}}}}X•}:{•}:•:r {•

:$ is{titi~}'r ~:titi::::

. k . . }I f:4:{ r

•' ~.

4

:~

. ~

x5B'I•R: Blood, Tears Repression

Small struggles enter labor historybecause they capture the essence of themovment, telling us about the personalcourage and sacrifice it takes to fight forjustice against oppression . In SouthAfrica today, one such historic struggleis the Sarmcol workers strike.

The struggle began in April 1985,when 950 workers at BTR-Dunlop 'sSarmcol plant in Natal went out on alegal strike for union recognition, led bythe metalworkers union, now NUMSA.They were all fired after two days andreplaced by scabs . The strikers' averagelength of service in the plant was 18years .

More than three years later, theSarmcol workers are still fighting fortheir rights in the face of enormoushardship . Unity has been maintaineddespite vicious violence in the workers'township, where vigilantes have ab-ducted, torture and murdered key strikeleaders.

The lead worker-actor in the Sarm-col strikers ' play, "The Long March,"was among those slain . ThisSeptember, a busload of Sarmcolworkers on their way to a COSATUmeeting was firebombed. The workerswere sleeping in the bus, since theycould not get hotel accommodations atthe nearby Holiday Inn .

The Sarmcol strikers have outlastedlegal repression as well . Even thoughBTR admitted in court that it has usedthe strike to crush the union and hadcooperated with the Security Branch intargeting workers, the Industrial Courtrejected the union's appeal forintervention.

Perhaps most moving, however,has been the workers' collective battleagainst starvation . Since they are black-listed and there are no other jobs in thearea, SARMCOL workers have had todevelop their own resources forsurvival.

With the aid of their union, workersand their families have started SAWCO,a five-part cooperative : avegetable coopto grow food, a printing coop to producelabor T-shirts, a health coop to monitormalnutrition, abuying coop to distributeNUMSA food parcels, and a culturalcoop to spread the message . Their playhas toured South Africa and Britain.The coop has also started a woman'schorus.

NUMSA has organized an interna-tional campaign against Sarmcol'sowners, the British multinationalBTR-Dunlop . BTR is one of the ten larg-est corporations in Britain . It is based inLondon, with hundreds of subsidiariesaround the world, including Dunlopsporting goods. It has pursued its anti-union, anti-worker policies globally aswell . There have recently been pro-tracted srtrikes against BTR not only inSouth Africa, but also in Britain, theU.S. and Trinidad.

A campaign to expose and curbBTR's practices is now underway in Bri-tain. American workers can help too, bydocumenting the use of BTR-Dunlopproducts in their workplace and notify-ing the NY LCAA c/o CWA Local 1180,6 Harrison St ., NY NY 10013 (718-768-1756) . Workers and unions can alsosend support donations to the Sarmcolstrikers c/o SAWCO, P.O. Box 156,Howick, 3290, Natal, .South Africa.

Shell Boycott Update :::. .: :r: rr :.. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. ...

On Soweto Day, June 16, hundreds of New York labor, church and community ac-tivists rallied outside Shell Headquarters at Rockefeller Center, demanding thatShell and Mobil Oil get out of South Africa . The day's events included a marchthrough Manhattan, Congressional delegations to support comprehensive sanc-tions legislation, and a call to tighten up New York City sanctions . Nomande Ngubo,above, spoke for the national Shell Boycott.

Current activities in the Shell/Mobil campaigns include a demonstration obser-ving Human Rights Day, on December 9, at noon outside the Mobil Headquarters,150, East 42nd St ., Manhattan.

New York groups also sent a delegation on November 10 to Bankers' Trust, call-ing on the bank to join the Shell Boycott Shareholders Campaign to force a Shellshareholders meeting on the issue of disinvestment.

. ..a :. } v:w:: }}:v::.:::•':v::{ir;::y::w::::.: }}

::{y: }v,;r v.:

. :: :.. .: . }r.

.. : ir:•:{•}}' {•: .. .. .: :•. ::::•.w:.. x. v::::::::.•. v::C•}vi{•}}}}:•}:•:•:{{•}: . . . .{rf .{ : :: {v:: {v :{{.

. .xv • r¢.•}..

. .•:u•... :.. . . r:

. .~. • •.•1.f.!:ti{'}!::{!}., }}fi{!}} :!}{:{!}}}}}:{:'}:•:{{,}}}:'•}Y: :•.•.YN:::::: r::rN: r:.v:•::.: ~:::.: : :{ ti : ~1 .. . . 1~. ..{. . .. r.. . .

}y r .

.} . .

y ..L :

r ..: . . h . . .

]~.N. .. ' : ::: }.r.{:':::.vr:'.•7.• r. . :{v~~.:•:.•.t.•}!{•.v}. ::•~Y.b'!A}' }}.1..Nr dw?SwY'i:7r

p ~o44c~a Qryc~ raoon4 ~3c~ caaa~a

~WEEDL~D~M, ~~ c .

WA S A FI ERY WtlNAPP`/

~oRPoRA?ro~J . ~logoDy

LIkED NAM BE~A~ sE

HE oPERATEA ~N

SovTN AfR~G4 .

90 Tv~EEw~D~MSotD N1S FA~T~YTo TvdE~Df.EDEF, IaG.

is So~rr1 AFicica.

4poD

8T

y,I~ED~EO~~ MADE

Ti~E~Oc,ED~M 's PRoD-ucTs, So~D Ti~E~DLE-DuM~s flRoDuc~s~SHARD TFIE P~of'~TS

WKN T~J~'E~~M • . .

. . . A~1D ScREwEDTAE So~1~1AfRI~A~ EMPt~1~~s,

~o~fRgCT~~~~~

coNr~,cr?

.

c

.

NA .

. ~1p WN~~

TWEE~c~ DuM, t~k .WAS REPR~MA pD~Df~R T~~Dc.~~~'s

A~Tlo tJ~ T~EEDtk .

p~M sa ~c$eo

Neo -P

I~NATs

C~a Io;, .~ ~o ~

.

~~~

1

C~

~ s~~`~

City SanctionsCbsing the Loopholes

Continued from front page

heid. They should not have to bear themain burdens of its undoing.

"Companies that are withdrawingfrom South Africa and occupiedNamibia should be held accountable forobserving the basic labor rights of theiremployees as they terminate businessthere . Companies should not be allowedto use disinvestment, in any f orm, ascause to abrogate or erode union con-tracts,employee benefits, or other hard-wonjob protections :'

The LCAA and its sponsors havecalled f or specific provisions in the newbill ensuring that the South African andNamibian employees of divesting com-panieshave the right to advance noticeof the termination of business and theright to good f aith negotiations over theterms of such termination . Both condi-tionshavebeen put forward by the Con-gress of South African Trade Unions(COSATU) and by the U.S. Compre-

hensive Sanctions Bill of 1988, theDellums-Cranston bill.

The need to close the loopholes inexisting City law, including labor rightsprotections, has gained attentionthrough the work of the LCAA, churchgroups, and several City officials overthe past year.

For example, workers at BellevueHospital discovered the HHC was pur-chasing Hewlitt-Packard equipment,while the company maintains a plant inSouth Africa . Leaders of the ChemicalWorker Industrial Union in SouthAfrica, visiting New York, documentedthe case of Sterling Drug maintaining itsSouth African profits through licensingagreements (see story page 3).

Manhattan Borough PresidentDavid Dinkins challenged proposedCity purchases of GM and Ford vehiclesat the City Board of Estimate, sincethose companies maintain subsidiariesin South Africa . Comptroller HarrisonGoldin, at the request ofanti-apartheidgroups, discovered that the City waspurchasing at least $3 million in oilproducts from Shell, presumablythrough third-party vendors andemployee reimbursements .

The new bill itself was introducedby City Council Peter Uallone and is co-sponsored by Council members Katz-man, Casteneira Colon, Clark, Foster,Pinkett, Rivera, Robles, Spigner,Williams and Wooten . The frameworkfor the bill was developed with strongsupport from Borough PresidentDinkins' office and City Councilmember Ruth Messinger's office.

Hearings on the amendments toLocal Laws 19 and 81 will be held inearly December. It is not yet clear if thebill will have smooth passage or face amajor challenge by affected corpora-tions .New York City is a large, lucrativemarket for many companies who havenot responsibly disinvested and theyhave already expressed alarm attougher City sanctions.

The LCAA and the New York labormovement will mobilize in the comingweeks for passage of the bill, withstrong labor rights amendments . Wewill also be developing a WorkersMonitoring Campaign for 1989, enlist-ingthe help of union locals and mem-bers on the job to monitor City pur-chases and to report to the new en-forcement agency.

:.vrr.•.•:. r: rr .5' •VN r •: •r rr •.V V V.:•:r.•rr. •

!f 'Y:Y •'

r.Y.J

: :•

• Vnw:: nw.•:.~.•r.•.•: rr •r • •rrr.•:•Y • •ry •.'r wrr • : • V:.L r•~• •

• •r .• : •r: : ~.•:::.v •.•rr •.rtiYr.:}

r';:v };:::$;:r :;;:,.Y.r ;

. 7{. .{r.{

~+;.} }. .

. .4. r. .

:

Y!'•f•$r.

r

. r;

: :• v:: •.. . .

:. . r .. .

'{S:• :•Y

: }: r.. .

. . r.

: {.; •. .

.:$

~{ty.~~tt~~. r. .} .•'r $$}:v'~.{ ..{ . r . r.

' :{

. :v 4 . r~ r $, ./

;: :: •. r .

• : ::.

is

vf•:{{~yr ,rte;.

r r iv}tvrrr • • fi:. r. •.• rl .

r.:•

. r: • •:.. . r. • '~:•'r:•:v. .. $

•r;$%$:$fi..r.}r:• r

.•~rr`•5:•'{~'4i•7•ti~f

. . {r

}• .•.

r. :{ {::}:r• {r. {v•~

• }

{

. ..~}. .

}}:{{r ;fr}:•'{r}r~i .: .. .

. .k.

•hr

~' ~f~

:.v. .

u:: : Y.

~ .X.x.. ..r •.v,

}r.rr. v •

.{r: •• :. .

x.:

'rif: ~•"

{

~

.: :. : •k . .. :r:{{•

..}: .: .rrtiv'vx

{}: •.vx0,. ,5 :r. .: . r. .:w.{ .. .:+r. ~::{:rll. . . fvx.. :. r..

. S. .. .

~lT lr.} . }.. rrr hr. ~.. . b}C•. r.: r.

~r. :~: r:.v. . r. r.. n .: :: }r.•:.•$.•::::7!: . r. ::•r,{.•i •{?iri{'„{5$ :rr:{rr. .4.•TSti•Xrl+~i :!}:lf{•Yr:{},•. r r} :~•r.{f2r{:vr.•f.::.•}Y•:^isC~:{•.::•r.:•r.::•,r,::.~1{;:::~. .1;;.. ~} xLCAA sponsors . . . .

. .

.

,

Co-chairs : Stanley HIII, Exec. Dir., D.C . 37, AFSCME ; Ceorglanna Johnson, Pres., District 1199Steering Committee: Lou Albano, Pres., Local 325, D.C. 37, AFSCME; Ed Allen, Assoc. Dlr., Corporate Campaign, Inc . ; Beverly Gana, Dlr., Region 9A, United Auto Workers;Jlm Bell, Pres,,, NY~Coalition of Black Trade Unionists ; George Boncoragllo, Pres ., CSEA Metro Region 2 ; Jim Butbr, Pres., Local 420, D.C. 37, AFSCME; Arthur Chellotea, Pres ., Local 1180,CommunicatiorisWorkers ofAmerica ; Charles Ensley, Pres., Local 371, D.C. 37, AFSCME; Bany Feinstein, Pres., Local 237 , InYI Brothefiood of Teamsters ; Janet Friedman, Pres.,Committee of Interns and Residents ; Harry Foner, Pres., Furriers Council, United Food 8~ Commercial Workers ; John Glaael, Pres., Local 802, American Federation of Musicians;BIII Henning, Vice Pres., Local 1180, Communication Workers of America ; John Hudson, Manager, Headwear Joint Board, ACTWU ; Dan Kane, Pres., Local 111, Int'I Brotherhood of Teamsters;Josephine LeBeau, Vice Pres., NYS Coalition of Labor Union Women ; Barry Llebowitz, Pres., Doctors Council; William Lucy, Pres ., Coalition of Black Trade Unionists;Josle McMillan, Pres., Metro Area Postal Workers Union, APWU ; Sam Meyers, Pres ., United Auto Workers ; Henry Nichols, Pres., NaYI Union of Hospital &Health Care Employees;William Nuchow, Sec. Treas., Local 840, Int'I Brotherhood of Teamsters; Jan Pler+ce, Vice Pres . for District 1, Communication Workers of America; Marlon Porro, Pres ., Local 1930, AFSCME;Bettye Roberts, Pres., District Council 1707, AFSCME ; Cleveland Robinson, Sec : Treas., District 65, United Auto Workers ; Edgar Romney, Manager, Local23-25, InYI Ladies Gam~ent Workers Union;CharlesSallee, Exec ice-Pres., ACTWU ; JadcShelnkman, PreS, ACTVW ; CedlToppin, Manager, Service &ANied IndustriesJdnt Board, AG'tWU ; kfaTorres, VioeP ►es, Loc~l3, Storewnrlaers Union, RSONW