Cheney's corporate past, continued
by Seth Gitell
|
SAME OLD:
if Bush is a "very different kind of Republican," his running mate is business as
usual.
|
Texas labor officials point to the South Texas Nuclear Project as an example of
the company's worst practices. In 1985, Brown & Root was removed from the
power-plant construction project after utilities charged that the company
wasn't doing a quality job. CBS reported in 1979 that inspectors examining the
quality of concrete installation ceased inspecting the project after receiving
threats from workers on the site. Brown & Root settled for
$750 million with three Texas utilities after it was removed from the job.
"They got tossed off and we had to go in and finish it," recalls Gale Van Hoy,
the executive secretary of the Texas labor council.
To be fair, the power-plant deal occurred long before Cheney took the reins of
Halliburton. But did he take steps to change the company? Van Hoy and other
labor leaders say he didn't: "Dick Cheney didn't change anything. That company
is still [labor's] enemy and will smash us and fight us if it can."
Take the company's involvement in the building of Enron Field. In 1997, Brown
& Root procured the contract to build Houston's $180 million baseball
park by promising to complete the job for a maximum of $229.5 million -- a
bid that Brown & Root's union competitors could not match. Still, labor
officials expected to forge a project agreement with Brown & Root at union
wages because the labor lobby had backed the stadium referendum that authorized
the building of the park. The Harris County AFL-CIO Council hoped to get Brown
& Root to hire apprentices and train a new generation of workers on the
project. In addition, labor officials in Houston wanted Brown & Root to pay
the prevailing wage -- a uniform wage set by labor -- for work on the new
stadium. But Brown & Root rebuffed the unions and opted to use both union
and non-union workers. The unions threatened to picket the project.
"They ended up dictating what the prevailing wage should be and they rejected
our call on that," says Richard Shaw, the labor group's secretary-treasurer. In
the end, 85 percent of the contractors and laborers hired to build Enron Field
were union workers. But the 15 percent who weren't did not receive full
benefits. And unions objected to the way the project was managed on the grounds
that the company used an "open shop" with non-union workers.
"To me it's unconscionable to oppose training people on public-works projects,"
says Shaw. "If you're going to use public dollars, [the public] ought to get
something out of it."
Labor officials argue that the public interest is better served when a
multimillion-dollar public initiative, such as a baseball stadium, is built
with union workers. At least with union workers, Shaw and others say, safety
standards are maintained and new workers receive training. Van Hoy maintains
that if union workers had been in place throughout the entire project, the
quality of work would have been better (the stadium's retractable roof, for
instance, occasionally fails to keep rain out), several hundred more union
workers would have done the job (at union wages), and more people would have
gotten trained.
"This says that Cheney has absolutely no respect for working people, their
right to organize, their right to be represented," says Hank Sheinkopf, a
Democratic strategist. "This is a throwback to the worst kind of labor
conditions, which is what you expect in Texas -- a right-to-work state."
More disturbing than the company's tangled history with labor, however, is
Halliburton's use of mandatory individual-worker agreements that preclude
employees from bringing suit in state or federal court. This means that a
worker who faces age or racial discrimination at Halliburton cannot sue. The
United States Supreme Court gave such agreements the green light in 1991. In a
January 25 article in the New York Law Journal titled "Bypass
Unions to Negotiate Individual Agreements to Arbitrate Statutory Discrimination
Claims," Samuel Estreicher, a professor of labor law at New York University
School of Law, identified Halliburton as a leader in this practice. Other
companies that use such agreements include Philip Morris and International
Paper.
In the abstract, such a provision may not seem like much. But consider the case
of 32 African-Americans working for Halliburton at an oil refinery in Belle
Chasse, Louisiana -- a case first reported by the New Orleans
Times-Picayune.
Although company rules preclude the workers and their attorney, Reva Lupin,
from discussing the case in detail, Charles Sanders, 31, a worker and informal
spokesman for the group, did agree to tell his story. Belle Chasse is off the
beaten path in the heart of the Louisiana bayou, 30 miles from New Orleans. At
the refinery, laborers make $7.50 per hour. Workers in the machinist department
make between $13.50 and $14.95 per hour. Supervisors and managers make more.
Sanders says that during his three years at the company there has been only one
African-American manager, despite the fact that African-Americans make up about
one-third of the company's work force -- and that most African-Americans work
as low-paid laborers.