1984-04 April IBEW Journal.pdf - International Brotherhood of ...

days of hL!> adLnlOiStla tlOll, PreSIdent
Reagan dectu red that he had a mandate
for chanKc from the VOIeTS, even thouKh
he had won only 50.7 percent of the
popular vote 11\ 1980. Congress, with Its
RepublIcan-controlled Senate, rubberstaml)cd
his legislative program and
qUI ckly passed the baSIC Jaws establish·
mg Rcagan0I111 CS, whIle dCSlroYlIlg the
progresSIve social IcgLslalinn !)f til(' p:l~'
50 years.
Presldem RCllgan's hudgel pobcH.!s, tax
poliCIes, tr:lde poliCies, monetary pob·
CICS, and regulatory policlcs h:lvC a common
goal- take from the average Amer­
Ican worker and from the poor and give
10 the nch and 10 powerful bUSinesses.
One of the ildmlnlStraliOn's first acts was
to slash tax niles for hUSlIlCSS and the
wealthy. The Reagan budget CUIS destroyed
the essence of social and welfare
progr:II11S, unfavorably affecting badly
needed housmg programs, unemploy·
ment compcn5allOn, black lung pro·
grams, Jobs programs, Medicare and Med·
Icald funds, dlsabdlty bencfhs, SOCial
Security and penSion benefits, ellVlron·
mental and lob safety rules, civd service
and nuhtary rctlrement beneAu, and
federal workers' pay. The President's re·
peated efforts to create a youth sub·
mllllmum wage arc iust another example
of the cxplOitatlon of those who need
work.
Presidential Appointees
The PreSident hasthe power to appoint
hundreds of people to CablllCt poSitiOnS,
federal agencies, com nUSSlOns, task lorccs,
workmg groups, etc. HIS appollltments
mvanably reflect hi S own philosophy,
and many, of COUfse,;He polillcal payoffs.
Since It is Impossible for the White House
to check everythl1l~ that IS done by the
Pn::sldent's appOllltees, sume of hiS ap·
pam led people 1.lke adv:lllta~e of the
OpportUlllty 10 promote their own phd·
osophlcal gOJ\s, whIch may be even more
extreme than the President's. Some of
these people do not consider the Jaws
and progr:llns entrusu::d 10 theu care
worth enforcmg. Some display theIT anll·
unwn bias through their lack of enforce·
ment and through their admllllStrallve
deCISIOns. (Sec "NLRll N:ltlon:11 Labor
Rq,'l.Ilations I~u s t e rs!" m th" M:lrch, 1984,
18EW /o!lflllll.1
The lIIali illlPUlllted hy PreSident Rca·
gan to head the Occupational Safery and
Hc.:Jlth AdmInistration (OSHA lc:lme from
a firm that had been cllcd 2.l tlm"~ fnr
OSHA safety viOlatHlns. Workers no
longer can dcpend on OSIIA to ensure
thelT safety and heJlth on the lob. The
Reagan Admlnlstral10n hilS tried to un·
dcrmllle the Inw by nlterlllE: the rules
throllE:h wluch It IS enforced. Budget cms
have forced th e AnnA of comrlt'1nce of·
REVISED CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE
AND CLERICAL WORKERS
UNITED STATES CITY AVERAGE
SOURCE: u.s. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REFERENCE eASE, u.s. AVERAGE 1967 • 100
JANUARY. 1984
Appa.al
AIL Ltaml
•
Tla"lpo,· Medlnl
Monl!! Vel' Comblned Fooa Housing Upkeep lallo" Cant
January 1964 302.7 2994 324 7 195.3 3079 367.5
December t983 301 .5 294.0 324.2 198.1 308.2 364.3
November 1983 301.4 2926 324.5 1997 308.2 362.9
October 1983 301.3 292.9 325.2 1998 3069 360.9
Seplember 1983 300.8 292.6 325.3 1993 3055 359.2
AugUSI 1983 299.5 292.2 324.3 1963 3041 357.9
July 1983 298.2 292.1 323.1 1940 301.9 355.6
June 1983 297 .2 292.2 322.3 1947 299.6 353.3
January 1983 292. 1 2884 317 .0 190.0 2943 345.3
January 1982 282. 1
January 1981 260.7
January 1980 233.3
January 1979 2047
NOTE ConllUmllf Pllce IfIde. lor an l1emS !tIC"ased I 2 poonts dunng lhe pest monll! Of 0 4' ThI$ equaned
en e.nnual 'Ile at increase 01 • 8". 10 4 '( 12) The !tIC.ease m CPI Ourlng lilt past 1'11" was 106
potfllS, Of 3 So ..
Percent lnC"ase between two dates IS calculated by IlUbilaCilng lilt 0Ilde. numDe, lor lIIe earlie<
date lrom lhat lor the la te. dale and dividing i/Ie "suI! by lhe index number IoIlhe ea,l"