Funny to see this, since the Yale Law Workers Rights Project just started working on research in support of these regulations- a REALLY IMPORTANT issue, since this could potentially bar such union-busting, enviro-destroying, discriminating firms from $200 billion in contracts, a seriously large stick that the government has never used to enforce the laws of the land. As well, the regulations would bar companies from using money from any federal contract to resist unionization -- ie. all legal fees would have to come from private contracts or out of profits directly, no billing the government as is done today.
It is worth checking out the Chamber of Commerce site on the issue at http://www.noblacklisting.org which gives all the arguments for why the regulations are so great. They complain endlessly about how much this will strengthen unions.
--Nathan Newman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Lisa & Ian Murray
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 7:12 PM
> To: Lbo-Talk at Lists. Panix. Com
> Cc: Pen-L at Galaxy. Csuchico. Edu
> Subject: Focus on the Corporation follow-up: Anti-Scofflaw Alert
>
>
> [From Robert Weissman & Russell Mokhiber] An easy way to help workers.
>
> ian
>
>
> >
> >
> > A few weeks ago, the Focus on the Corporation column was titled
> "A Law and
> > Order Regulation for Corporations." The subject was a proposal
> to prevent
> > the U.S. government from entering into contracts with companies that are
> > chronic or serious violators of labor, environmental, tax, antitrust or
> > employment laws. This note is a follow up to that column.
> >
> > For more details, see the Essential Action web page,
> > http://www.essentialaction.org/anti-scofflaw.
> >
> > The federal government is now accepting comments on the proposed
> > regulation. Business groups are weighing in heavily against it;
> and so if
> > the proposal is to be enacted, it is vital that citizens and public
> > interest groups submit comments in support of the regulation.
> >
> > It is easy to submit comments -- even a comment that says nothing more
> > than, "I support the principle that the federal government should not
> > contract with companies that seriously transgress the law" is valuable,
> > and comments can be submitted by e-mail (as well as regular mail).
> >
> > For background on the proposed regulation, and tips on what to say in
> > comments, see the Essential Action web page,
> > http://www.essentialaction.org/anti-scofflaw. You can e-mail comments
> > directly to the agency from this page.
> >
> > If you are so eager to send comments that you don't even want
> to check the
> > page, you can send them by e-mail to farcase.99-010 at gsa.gov or
> by regular
> > mail to:
> >
> > General Services Administration
> > FAR Secretariat (MVR)
> > 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035 ATTN: Laurie Duarte
> > Washington, D.C. 20045
> >
> > Be sure to mention in all written comments that you are commenting in
> > reference to FAR case 99-010.
> >
> > ** Please pass this note on to friends, colleagues and relevant
> > listserves. **
> >
> >
> >
> >
>