The returns and tabulations could not be completed, however, before the failure of Congress to over-ride former President Ford's veto of Hatch Act reform on April 29. The viewpoints are as valid today as when they were originally expressed last Spring inasmuch as the current pending legislation is identical with the provisions of H.R. 8617. H.R. 10 As it developed, the APWU poll yielded its findings from two tines of the same fork: 39 of the locals provided individual breakdowns of the voting by their memberships totalling over 10,600; the remaining 27 locals with a membership of over 17,500 chose to report only the outcome "yes" or "no" without actual figures. Local polling officials had previously been instructed by APWU National Legislative Director Patrick J. Nilan that "to the maximum extent possible, the confidentiality of members responding should be protected." It was suggested further that participants express their preference in a secret ballot at union meetings or with a secret ballot in a "straw vote" procedure. These procedures were generally followed. The first question asked was: Do you believe that federal employees should have the right to participate in political activity so long as the integrity of the merit system is protected by law? Yes or No? All 66 locals voted yes. The vote among the locals reporting actual figures was 94.9 percent yes, 5.1 percent no. * The second question: Do you believe that any group of American citizens should be barred from taking part in U.S. politics by reason of their job categories or the kind of careers they pursue? All 66 locals voted no. Among the 39 locals listing figures, the result was 94.8 percent no, 5.2 percent yes. The third question: Do you suspect that some Congressional opponents of liberalizing the Hatch Act may be fearful that the extension of political rights to federal employees will endanger their own position in Congress? While the affirmative responses again prevailed overwhelmingly, this question elicited the only significant break in the unanimity of the membership. yes but eight other locals dissented. did not break down the voting totals. Fifty-eight locals did vote Three were locals which Among the five others that did provide breakdowns, the "yes" vote represented 81.8 percent while the "no" vote added up to 18.2 percent. Members of Congress may find some comfort in the evidence that the one issue on which unionized postal workers revealed any conspicuous alteration of attitude dealt with the question of political courage in the House and Senate. The fourth and final question: If President Ford should veto a revised Hatch Act bill such as HR 8617 would you want your representatives in Congress to over-ride? -4 In view of the fact that the vote to over-ride the Ford veto failed in the House by only 26 votes, it may be of interest that the yes vote on this question--again unanimous among the 66 locals--also produced the largest single majority among the locals which revealed their tallies. The percentage was 95.6 percent yes, 4.4 percent no. The participating locals on a state by state basis are listed below with asterisks denoting those locals which provided a breakdown of polling figures: Arkansas: Hot Springs, Little Rock. California: Chula Vista, Hayward, Oakland, Riverside, San Pedro, Whittier. Florida: Central Florida Area Local, Fort Myers, Panama City, St. Petersburg, West Palm Beach. Georgia: Atlanta, Savannah*. Guam: Tamuning Colorado: Fort Collins*. Connecticut: Bridgeport*. Hawaii: Honolulu* Illinois: Arlington Heights*, Evanston, Kankakee*, Rock Island, Rockford* Indiana: Lafayette* Kentucky: Louisville Massachusetts: Chicopee, Haverhill, Worcester* Michigan: Flint*, Grand Rapids*, Holland*, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Muskegon* Minnesota: Minneapolis, St. Paul* Mississippi: Gulfport* Nebraska: Lincoln New Hampshire: Manchester New Jersey: Clifton, Lakewood, Red Bank* West Virginia: Fairmont Wisconsin: Appleton, La Crosse, Madison* -30 97-222 O-78-9 EXHIBIT NO. 1 APWU SUPPORT FOR "HATCH ACT" AMENDMENTS MARCH 16, 1975 The Washington Star Metro • News • Finance SECTION B⭑ SUNDAY, MARCH 16, 1975 Federal Spotlight Opponent Of Hatch Act Speaks Out By Joseph Young Washington Star Staff Writer In a recent column we expressed the view that pending legislation to overhaul the Hatch Act would have a disastrous effect on federal career employes and the merit system, jeopardizing jobs and careers. The column drew a lot of reaction, both pro and con. While we haven't changed our views, we feel it is only fair to give equal space to those who favor giving freedom of political action to government workers. EXPRESSING the viewpoint of those favoring overhaul of the Hatch Act is a letter from Patrick J. Nilan, legislative director of the AFL-CIO American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and one of the ablest lobbyists in town. Nilan writes: "As old friends and admirers we are astonished and saddened by your recent defense of the Hatch Act. The views you expressed repudiate the very concept of fundamental liberties on which our form of government is based. They also reflect a dismal judgment of federal employes generally. "What's more you have tried to buttress your argument with personal observations that are demonstrably wrong. "You say that in more than 25 years of covering the government beat, with the exception of one individual in Virginia, you have never encountered a government worker who wanted the Hatch Act meaningfully changed. "Yet only last August, Joe, while covering the APWU national convention at Miami Beach, you personally saw 2,325 union delegates - - government workers all-vote unanimously for repeal of the Hatch Act. Not a single voice was raised in its defense from the floor. Indeed, you have been a personal witness to similar unanimity at earlier conventions, ours and others. "Surely you are familiar with the tough penalty provisions written into H.R. 3,000 by its sponsor, Rep. William Clay, D-Mo. Political firings, forced fund-raising, even arm-twist. ing by the boss all are punishable by assorted degrees of chastisement ranging from a minimum 30-day suspension without pay to full federal prosecution in the courts. "TO SUGGEST, as you do, that whenever a new administration takes over with a change in political parties that politically-active employes would 'face the ax' is to suggest the the rule of law does not exist and that the lessons of Watergate will have no future impact on the body politic. That kind of scare talk is pure rubbish. "But there is an even more grievous element in your rationale: inher ent throughout your column is the clear implication that the overwhelming majority of federal workers are politically gutless drudges, timid and enfeebled, condemned in your own words to lack-luster careers by a fear of their bosses, and eager to avoid exercising the most. precious civil right ever devised by a free society the right to participate in the action and passion of their times. "THE HATCH Act as it now stands not only abridges those rights, it flouts the deepest traditions of political activism in America. It is a form of repressive overkill. It has no compelling interest commensurate with the waiver of constitutional rights involved in its continuing application. As federal employes we resent our second-class status as citizens and we are not afraid to pursue our rights to political action or to exercise it regardless of what party may be in power. "Joe, we still love you, but it strikes us as ironic that a union of federal employes should have to make these arguments to, of all people, a Washington journalist!" |