CWA 7250 on Presidential Election: NO MORE BUSINESS AS USUAL

CWA Presidential Election - 

Details

Last Updated: 28 June 2023

Report of the Emergency Mutual Respect Committee on VP Ed Mooney

We received the following Report from the ad-hoc Emergency Mutual Respect Committee (EMRC) alleging a pattern of credible allegations of bullying, bigotry, and disrespect by CWA District 2-13 Vice-President Ed Mooney towards CWA members and staff. Mooney is also a candidate for President of the union. CWA Local 7250 President Kieran Knutson participted in the EMRC and is one of the signers of the Report.

While Local President Knutson consulted with the Local Executive Board and his participation on the EMRC was approved by the Board, the conclusions of the Report belong to him and the other signatories. CWA Local 7250 does not have an official position on this matter, at this time. As always, we urge all of our members to pay close attention to all union business, read documents carefully and with a critical eye, discuss with your co-workers and other union members, and make up your own mind. After the initial EMRC letter, Report and Q&A, an update from the committee from June 27th,2023 follows.

Emergency Mutual Respect Committee Statement #1 

June 13, 2023

Dear CWA Family,

We, the undersigned CWA Local Officers, are writing to our Union family to provide critical information about the upcoming election for CWA President. Based on alarming information that has come to our attention about the abusive conduct of District 2-13 VP Ed Mooney toward members and staff of our Union, it is our opinion that he is not fit to be our International President.

We reach this conclusion after reviewing written statements and listening directly to people in our Union who were treated disrespectfully, bullied and discriminated against by VP Mooney. The reports of disturbing behavior that we have read and heard do not show only a few isolated incidents; they reveal a pattern of unacceptable conduct. This information shook us and we feel compelled to bring this information forward. You can see a summary of some of the evidence we reviewed below.

We want to be clear. We are not saying our leaders need to be perfect. None of us are perfect. We are not against cussing. We are not demanding perfection. We are, however, demanding respect. While VP Mooney may have other attributes, we believe he is not fit to be the President of our Union. His reported behavior violates our CWA Mutual Respect Policy and cannot be swept under the rug.

We know people will have legitimate questions about our conclusions and our intentions. We would if we were you. Attached to this letter are the details of what was reported to us and some arguments and questions we considered, along with the CWA Mutual Respect policy. We ask that you read the report carefully and respect that we have put a lot of thought into what we are sharing.

As we reviewed the experiences people shared with us and the written complaints submitted to CWA HQ, the members of our committee wondered how this behavior could have been allowed to happen repeatedly and to be normalized. Along with seeking to deny support for a candidate who has engaged in this reported behavior, we are asking you to pledge support for a resolution to strengthen the transparency, enforcement and accountability of our CWA Mutual Respect policy. We ask you to pledge to publicly support a Mutual Respect resolution at Convention.

Finally, we remind everyone that it is a violation of our CWA Mutual Respect policy to retaliate against people for raising mutual respect and harassment concerns in good faith. Some of the witnesses we heard from are willing to be publicly identified and others are not. We ask that you treat them – and everyone – respectfully. If you or others you know have experienced disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive conduct from VP Mooney or any other leader in CWA, feel free to reach out to a member of our committee and/ or consider filing a Mutual Respect complaint.

We conclude this letter the way we opened it. We believe that no one with a longstanding reported pattern of bullying, bigotry, abuse, discrimination, threats of violence and harassment should be our CWA President. We do not expect perfection from our leaders, but we do demand mutual respect. We strongly call on your locals and your convention delegates to oppose VP Mooney for CWA President.

In Unity,

Members of the Emergency Mutual Respect Committee:

Belinda Aguilar, Vice President, CWA 6222*, member since 2014
Alex Brown, Retired President, IUE-CWA 81201*, member since 1978
Gwen Ivey, Retired President, CWA 13301*, member since 2012 (APWU since 1986)
Kieran Knutson, President, CWA 7250*, member since 2004
Ken McNamara, President, CWA 1037*, member since 1993
Delores Phillips, President, CWA 1089*, member since 1999
LaNell Piercy, President, CWA 4252*, member since 1975
Dan Russell, President, UPTE/CWA 9119*, member since 2013
Pam Wynn, Retired President, CWA 4309*, member since 1977
* Signed as individuals. Office and locals listed for identification purposes only.

Questions and arguments we considered before releasing this report:

Isn’t the way VP Mooney talks just colorful language? A lot of us use colorful language. Some of us swear regularly. We aren’t mad about profanity or even getting angry. But when witnesses told us their experiences with VP Mooney, they described slurs, screaming, and the use of words seemingly to humiliate and intimidate. The conduct we heard about was not merely colorful language but was verbal abuse, deep disrespect and even cruelty – from a person in a position of power and trust in our Union. We would never accept this treatment of our union members from an employer.

Isn’t this just hearsay / a witch hunt / one-sided? We learned from people first-hand about their own personal experiences. Some of us didn’t know anything about VP Mooney before we were on this committee and didn’t have an opinion about him one way or the other. Some of us were considering supporting his bid to become CWA President.

We have reviewed statements from people who have experienced mistreatment from VP Mooney. This is not a court of law or an arbitration hearing that requires a certain standard of evidence but rather an effort in good faith to bring forward what we were told (We did not talk to VP Mooney, but we would welcome a response and accountability.). Although a formal charge for violating the CWA Mutual Respect Policy can be brought under our Constitution, that is not what we are doing here. We are local leaders who, based on what we learned and in our own judgment, do not think VP Mooney should become CWA President.

Is this just one or two bitter people with an ax to grind? No. We heard directly from seven (7) people who were CWA members, CWA local leaders, retired local leaders, District 2-13 staff and national CWA staff. We know there are other people with stories who did not feel safe to come forward. In our opinion, the witnesses we heard from were highly credible. Their reported negative experiences with VP Mooney spanned more than a decade, with incidents as recent as within the last few months. We reviewed documents from the NLRB from more than ten years ago and two written complaints submitted to CWA HQ in 2020 and 2021. We believe all this evidence shows a pattern of abusive and unacceptable behavior over a period of years.

Isn’t this just a politically motivated hit job? No. A hit job is an unfair attack. In our opinion, this is not an unfair attack because it’s based on credible first-hand information. Some members of our committee considered VP Mooney a qualified candidate they might support prior to hearing the witnesses’ statements.

VP Mooney has always been so nice to me, why should I believe you? If he has never yelled or cussed at you in anger or used a slur or insult against you or around you, we are glad to hear it. We are not saying that your genuinely positive experiences with VP Mooney are not real. We are not saying he has never made positive contributions to the Union or the community. We are saying that we found the people who talked to us about their very negative experiences with VP Mooney were credible. We believe them. And we are saying that someone who has a reported pattern of bullying, threats of violence, verbal abuse, and bigotry over many years should not be our CWA President.

Isn’t everyone an a**hole once in a while? Sure, and again we are not demanding perfection but VP Mooney took a**hole to a whole other level in some of these reported incidents. Speaking for ourselves as a group of local leaders, we do not treat people this way. It’s unacceptable, especially for our CWA President. We can sharply, passionately disagree with our union family members without being abusive. If a manager did any of these reported incidents, we would consider them an abusive boss and take action against them.

Aren’t you all just supporters of one of the other candidates? We are asking you not to vote for VP Mooney but we are not making a positive endorsement of any other specific candidate. Some of us support D6 VP Claude Cummings; some of us support Secretary-Treasurer Sara Steffens. Some of us don’t know how we will vote at Convention.

You didn’t use names, so how can we know you’re not making this up? Some of the witnesses are public about their experiences and others are not, but we found them all to be very credible. Some of them are taking significant risks by sharing their experiences and we want to protect them. We also want to protect the other people who were party to these incidents. Anonymizing the reports allows the witnesses to make their own decisions about who to trust with their own stories and when or if to speak publicly. They trusted us and we made a commitment to bring their experiences forward while protecting their privacy.

Report of the Emergency Mutual Respect Committee

Emergency Mutual Respect Committee (EMRC) members heard from seven (7) witnesses who directly shared their personal experiences with us over Zoom. Total testimony was approximately 100 minutes. We also reviewed a number of documents, some of which we are able to share. Those documents are attached at the bottom of this report.

Reported violations of the CWA Mutual Respect policy by VP Mooney:

The experiences people reported took place over more than a decade, from 2010 to 2023. Here are some of the specific incidents people cited, in no special order.

● An openly gay witness reported that VP Mooney yelled at him and called him a “c**ksucking f****t”. VP Mooney never apologized for the incident. The witness reported that VP Mooney continues to regularly use “c**ksucker” as an insult in reference to other people.

● It was reported by multiple witnesses that VP Mooney regularly used the term “c*nt” to refer to women in the Union and beyond, including women on the Executive Board, local elected officers, and publicly elected officials.

● Witnesses used the following terms to describe the tone VP Mooney repeatedly used with them: abusive, belittling, abrupt, sarcastic, insulting, hyper-aggressive, humiliating, unpredictable, contemptuous, hostile, demeaning, condescending, toxic, and disparaging.

● It was reported that VP Mooney put a local into receivership in 2022 after the local president filed a formal Mutual Respect complaint with President Shelton in 2020. The witness reported that he threatened the local president to accept the receivership, saying “we can do this the hard way or we can do this the easy way.” The local president reported that VP Mooney did not have adequate factual grounds for the receivership.

● It was reported by multiple local officers in multiple conversations that VP Mooney repeatedly suggested they punch their Union members in the face to resolve conflicts.

● Two former staff members who worked under VP Mooney said he made disparaging or racist comments about their appearance.

● A former employee stated that VP Mooney made fun of her physical disability in front of other people multiple times by making an exaggerated limp.

● A witness reported that a Korean-American local elected official told them that when they first met VP Mooney he said "Well of course you are a crazy progressive. Aren't all your people communists?"

● A witness reported being part of an acrimonious group conversation in July 2021, in which VP Mooney was hostile, shouting, and made frequent interruptions. He aggressively questioned why our Union would be organizing non-telecom workers like public higher education workers and "janitors in the south.” A separate witness reported that he had heard VP Mooney say he “didn’t know why we were organizing lunch ladies.”

● Multiple witnesses reported that VP Mooney repeatedly disparaged passenger service agent members. One witness reported he said that passenger service agents were “retarded and so I gave them the retarded staff rep.” It was reported by another witness that VP Mooney stated in a different meeting that passenger service agents were “the worst and so I gave them the worst staff rep.” A former local officer stated that VP Mooney called the passenger service agents members in her local “horrible,” “crooks and thieves,” “whack jobs,” and “lazy and worthless”. It is important to note that the majority of the passenger service members referred to in this way by VP Mooney are people of color.

● A witness reported fielding a complaint from a Pennsylvania Member of Congress. Reportedly VP Mooney called the MOC’s office and demanded that the intern receptionist get the MOC on the phone immediately. When the staffer explained that was not possible, VP Mooney berated the receptionist as an “idiot”, a “c*cksucker”, “a piece of sh*t whose parents should be ashamed of him”, along with other abusive obscenities, and threatened physical violence . Reportedly, the receptionist – who had been trained to handle abusive callers – broke down crying. The MOC said VP Mooney should never under any circumstances speak that way again to his staff.

● A former staff member gave us a copy of her written complaint of abusive treatment by VP Mooney. She submitted this written statement in 2021 to CWA Human Resources. It included a list of more than 20 separate incidents of racist stereotypes, threats of violence and abusive language.

● A partial list of examples under the category of abusive language reported by the former employee of VP Mooney:
○ “Shut the f*** up and listen to what I am telling you.”
○ “Stop getting all these useless ideas in your head and do exactly what I am f***ing telling you to do.”
○ “I don’t want to hear another f***ing word from you. Stop talking. Just stop talking.”
○ “Do you have a wish to be unemployed? Go jump up and down in your red shirts and do not f***ing ask me about this.”

○ “I swear to God - if you ask me about this one more f***ing time you will be unemployed.”
○ “I swear if you can do one f***ing thing right I will be shocked right now”
○ “Why the f*** do you think I have nothing better to do than read these useless emails you send. Believe it or not I have a job to do so stop f***ing sending me these. Do not email me again.”

● A former employee reported VP Mooney making reference to his gun and warning her to be careful.

● A former employee reported that VP Mooney told a local officer in a serious tone to “take her (the employee) out back and shoot her in the head.”

● A witness reported that VP Mooney threatened to punch a member of his staff in the face if she used a space heater again in the office

● It was reported that VP Mooney told a staff member he wanted to execute her and, in a separate incident, that she would be lucky if he put one flower on her grave if she died.

● A former employee reported that she brought a ULP charge against VP Mooney for threatening reprisals, making implied threats, accusing her of disloyalty and dishonesty, and interrogating her and others on union activity. VP Mooney agreed to and signed an NLRB settlement that required a posting for his staff regarding their union rights.

● A former employee reported that VP Mooney hung up on her and then called her back later in the afternoon to apologize and said “sorry I got angry,” and then lost his temper again and proceeded to shout at her again and hung up on her a second time. She reported that the next time she saw VP Mooney in the office he said sorry and opened his arms up for a hug and said “come here.” The witness felt obligated to hug him so she did.

● Multiple witnesses reported an incident in which VP Mooney said, “I’ve never hit a woman BEFORE”, emphasis on “before”. The witnesses reported perceiving that this could and may possibly happen.

● Local leaders reported hearing VP Mooney directly call one of his employees “stupid” and “incompetent” to the employee’s face.

● It was reported that it is widely known that VP Mooney threw a phone in anger at a secretary in the D2-13 office. [Note: This was the only hearsay we are including in this report. We include it because of the assertion that it was widely known.]

● Multiple witnesses reported experiencing stress, anxiety and long-lasting mental health impacts as a result of VP Mooney’s treatment of them.

The members of the Emergency Mutual Respect Committee attest that these are the details that were reported to us in direct testimony and written statements from impacted CWA members, local leaders, and current and former CWA staff. All the reported incidents occurred after the
2002 passage of the CWA Policy on Mutual Respect and the 2009 revision of that policy.

Excerpts of CWA POLICY ON MUTUAL RESPECT:
1. The Communications Workers of America reaffirms its commitment as a matter of principle and policy that all forms of discrimination, for whatever reason, be vigorously opposed until all vestiges of discrimination are eliminated from society.

2. Freedom from discrimination within our Union is a right and privilege of all CWA members. Any abridgement of this right and privilege shall be subject to a complaint under the CWA Internal Appeals Procedures and should be investigated immediately without fear of reprisal and retaliation.

3. In restating our policy for conduct within our Union, it is equally important that our employers reflect this policy so that neither the Company nor the Union shall unlawfully discriminate against a person on account of race, color, gender, religion, age, marital/parental status, political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or because a person is handicapped, a disabled veteran, or a veteran of the military service. This means what it says: "No form of Discrimination will be tolerated at any level of CWA." (emphasis added)

4. Any matter which relates to the field of discrimination should be immediately and appropriately handled by the appropriate level of the Union that comes across the allegation of discrimination. It should be handled thoroughly in an honest and positive manner.

5. It is a matter of principle that no one member is more equal than another. The handling of the representation of our members at all levels of CWA should be done in an evenhanded way with no fear; no preference; no favorites.

Mutual Respect in the CWA Constitution:

The principle of Mutual Respect – freedom from harassment and discrimination – is written into the CWA Constitution. It first appears as one of the six explicitly listed objects of CWA (relevant language only) :

 “Article III—Objects. The objects of the Union shall be:

(f) To fight discrimination and harassment in all its forms, through the incorporation of the CWA Policy on Mutual Respect into this Constitution.” (emphasis added)

Later, violations of the Mutual Respect policy are listed as grounds for removal of union membership:
“Article XIX—Charges Against Members
Section 1—Specifications of Offenses—Locals
Members may be fined, suspended and/or expelled by Locals in the manner provided in the Constitution for any of the following acts:
(i) Violating the CWA Policy on Mutual Respect by acting in a discriminatory or harassing way;” (emphasis added)

Evidence of Violations of Mutual Respect, Failure to Abide by CWA Constitution:

Based on the many incidents reported to us directly and the language in the CWA Policy on Mutual Respect and the CWA Constitution, we believe there is overwhelming evidence that VP Mooney has a long-standing pattern of violations of Mutual Respect and a failure to abide by the CWA Constitution.

As current and former Local Officers, we have all taken the oath of office in CWA. We attempt to abide by the oath we took which includes the following line: “I promise to faithfully discharge my duties according to the bylaws and rules of the Local and the Constitution and policies of the Union.” (emphasis added). Based on our own understanding of the role and responsibility of elected union leaders, it is our opinion that VP Mooney has violated the oath of office.

The members of the EMRC voted unanimously to finalize this report on June 8, 2023. The EMRC is comprised of the following current and retired CWA Local Officers:

Belinda Aguilar, Vice President, CWA 6222*, member since 2014
Alex Brown, Retired President, IUE/ CWA 81201*, member since 1978
Gwen Ivey, Retired President, CWA 13301*, member since 2012 (APWU since 1986)
Kieran Knutson, President, CWA 7250*, member since 2004
Ken McNamara, President, CWA 1037*, member since 1993
Delores Phillips, President, CWA 1089*, member since 1999
LaNell Piercy, President, CWA 4252*, member since 1975
Dan Russell, President, UPTE/ CWA 9119*, member since 2013
Pam Wynn, Retired President, CWA 4309*, member since 1977

Documents: D2-13 Local officer’s Mutual Respect Complaint 2020; D2-13 Staff’s NLRB ULP
Settlement and associated Notice to Employees

EMRC Statement #2
Update from the Emergency Mutual Respect Committee

June 27th, 2023

Dear CWA Family,

Thank you for the tremendous support we have received in response to the statement we released last week. We came together as an unofficial, ad-hoc committee precisely to make sure that these issues would get the attention they deserve and to protect those who shared their experiences with us. We appreciate President Shelton’s swift decision to appoint a committee to perform an independent investigation of VP Mooney’s concerning conduct.

The investigation is being led by Jeff Rechenbach, retired CWA Secretary Treasurer. The people we heard from are in touch with the investigation committee. We have learned that additional people have come forward as well. We encourage anyone with relevant personal experience to contact the committee immediately. They can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

We know that there are many of you who are deeply disappointed that action to ensure mutual respect in CWA was not taken sooner -- and others who think that this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated political attack orchestrated by one of VP Mooney’s opponents.

As we said before, we are neither coordinating with any other candidate nor are we, as a committee, endorsing any other candidate. Regardless of who becomes our next President, we hope that this long overdue conversation, combined with rank-and-file efforts for mutual respect at convention and beyond, will transform our union for the better. You can support this important effort by filling out the Mutual Respect pledge form.

We intend to bring a resolution on mutual respect to the CWA Convention. It will call for changes to better uphold our mutual respect policy and CWA Constitution. The current situation has drawn attention to the urgent need for structural change, cultural change, policy change, and even constitutional change. If you or someone you know would be well-suited to help draft the resolution, please get in touch with us.

We stand firm that we will not tolerate harassing, discriminatory or disrespectful conduct at any level: our national executive board, local leaders, workplace stewards or members. We do not accept it in the workplace and we will not accept it in our union. Top elected leaders (who are paid by our dues) are in positions of trust, power and privilege and must set the highest standard.

In Unity,

Members of the Emergency Mutual Respect Committee

Belinda Aguilar, Vice President, CWA 6222*, member since 2014

Alex Brown, Retired President, IUE-CWA 81201*, member since 1978

Gwen Ivey, Former President, CWA 13301*, member since 2012 (APWU since 1986)

Kieran Knutson, President, CWA 7250*, member since 2004

Ken McNamara, President, CWA 1037*, member since 1993

Delores Phillips, President, CWA 1089*, member since 1999

LaNell Piercy, President, CWA 4252*, member since 1975

Dan Russell, President, UPTE/CWA 9119*, member since 2013

Pam Wynn, Retired President, CWA 4309*, member since 1977

* Signed as individuals. Office and locals listed for identification purposes only.

Attachments:

EMRC Statement 2	[EMRC Statement 2]	73 kB
EMRC Report	[Report of the EMRC]	147 kB

Details

Last Updated: 27 June 2023

Responses from CWA Presidential Candidates to our Local's Questions

Responses from CWA Presidential Candidates to our Local's Question

Before our Candidates Forum (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4c2yFpz6To) we submitted these sets of questions to the announced Candidates for President of the CWA, based on the issues we highlighted on our flyer at the CWA national Wireless Conference. So far we have received answers from two of the candidates, CWA Secretary-Treasurer Sara Steffens and CWA District 6 Vice President Claude Cummings, Jr. We never received any written response from CWA District 2-13 Vice President Ed Mooney. We are publicizing their answers here and on the PDF's attached. 

Question #1:
Last year our Local organized a major campaign to keep the Work from Home (WFM) option at AT&T. Our members found that WFH was safer, saved them money on commuting and childcare, gave them more time with their families and more time for rest, and more control of their work space. With the help of a few other Locals we were able to organize actions, press conferences, a petition with over 8,000 signatures and major media attention. We didn't get much support from the CWA national or districts though and we were unable to win WFH for our Legacy T Call center Workers in Minneapolis.

What was with the disconnect between the Union and our members' urgent demand to keep WFH?
Going forward, how can we win good WFH jobs and maintain a strong internal union organization?

Ed Mooney: No Response Received

Claude Cummings, Jr.:  Thanks for this question. First of all, I signed the petition. I recognized early during the pandemic that our members were enjoying WFH. It is a proven fact; mobilization is only effective when Districts and Sectors stand united in support of each other’s issues. This starts at the top. As President, as I have as Vice President, I will always remember I work for the members, the members don’t work for me and I will try my best to deliver for them on change they would like to see as long as it does not conflict with the CWA Constitution, and negotiated contracts. It is extremely important to implement an effective platform that provides ALL, Districts and locals an avenue where concerted activity is taken seriously. A platform where strategic plans and timelines are developed, encouraged and aggressively implemented throughout our UNION, should be in place. This is a process that every local regardless of need, regardless of size, should be a part of and have the opportunity to utilize that would include the critical, unwavering support of the National.

Work from Home jobs can be accomplished through contract negotiations, EFFECTS bargaining and a strong mobilization effort for WFH during contract negotiations.

However, when we do achieve WFH we MUST have a better internal Union Job steward structure with a strong and effective network. This must consist of dedicated and active leadership teams which includes empowering our Job Stewards in every step of this process. Proper tools, training and education is essential to the success of this process. Zoom membership meetings and quarterly gatherings such as Union Days that include educational programs along with outreach helps keep our members engaged and connected to their unions.

Sara Steffens: I know some CWA leaders still worry about the potential long-term effects of working from home on our union and our communities. But working from home is a major quality-of life benefit, as important as pay and job security, for our members in jobs where it’s possible — and that’s true as well for our CWA staff, many of whom now have hybrid work assignments. And CWA members including passenger service agents and journalists successfully worked from home long before the pandemic and remained strong union members.

So, it’s time to listen to members and get real: Instead of clinging to what used to be, we need to help our members advocate for the priorities they identify on bargaining surveys, including working from home.

We need to collect and share best practices for work from home, including model contract language on critical issues like new hire data and orientations, remote surveillance, equipment reimbursement and callback protections. CWA must build systems to support hybrid and home-based workers and units, including funding home visits, organizing blitzes, electronic membership cards, virtual union boards and other strategies to ensure that our union density and activism remains strong.

 
Question #2:
The experience of our Local and many others across the union is that we wait months and months - sometimes over a year - for grievances to be heard at District/National level. This lack of movement stalls any momentum and lets management know they can deny at first step and then it will effectively disappear. It's not uncommon for workers to leave the job while waiting for grievances to be resolved. This only breeds frustration, distrust and cynicism among rank & file members towards the union.

What can be done to aggressively expedite grievance movement?
Would you support an *expectation* that grievances are heard within 60 days at the higher levels?

Ed Mooney: No Response Received

Claude Cummings, Jr.: In an attempt to correct this problem, it is imperative to investigate to find the root cause. Based on the findings I would focus on a viable solution. For example, if shortage of Staff is the problem, one solution would be to hire more Staff. On the other hand, some delays are caused by management’s refusal to adhere to the negotiated contractual language. It is my belief that unnecessary delays in the scheduling and hearing of grievances is totally unacceptable. Every contract has defined time limits for filing, scheduling and the appeal process. Anything short of that is a violation of the contract which will not be tolerated and every avenue available should be utilized to correct this injustice. Our contracts are not worth the paper they are written on if we do not police the contracts and make sure they are enforced accordingly.

Sara Steffens: I support an expectation that grievances at higher levels should be handled within 60 days; we also need to clean up the backlog and identify what’s been causing the delays.

Transparency increases accountability for everyone involved: Going forward, all grievances assigned to CWA staff should be tracked and monitored for timeliness. Members and Locals should always be kept up-to-date on the status of their grievances.

Of course, even when we do our part, some grievances will take more than 60 days – for instance, when they are part of a larger collective bargaining process, or where an employer is unresponsive and requires more aggressive measures.

Question #3:
We are bleeding members at AT&T and DirecTV. The company has whittled down union presence to only 20% of its retail stores, more and more tech work is being outsourced and our Legacy T and DirecTV Call Centers face heavy attrition with no new hiring.

What can we do to stop the bleeding?
What is your plan to organize the unorganized sectors of AT&T and DirecTV?
What is your overall plan to build the Union?

Ed Mooney: No Response Received

Claude Cummings, Jr.: We must first alert our telecommunications employers we have contracts with, that the days of CWA helping them pass legislation and providing assistance in the regulatory arena are over, if there are not direct hires involved. We also must have serious negotiations with management about authorized dealers taking out work, and closing our stores, it has to stop!! We must lobby our counties and city municipalities to make good working standards a part of their RFPS when they are soliciting for broadband deployment,

Secondly, we must promote the importance of a unionized workforce, providing the buildout of broadband. CWA must use every means of communication possible, especially now, during the start of broadband buildout, due to the infrastructure resources provided to states to promote unionized workers in the deployment. This will cause an increase in membership.
In order to accomplish this, we must capitalize on the major difference in benefits, wages, job security, safety and working conditions in a unionized versus nonunion environment. Stress the importance of having a voice at the workplace.

At the same time, we need to launch serious campaigns in support of a US Based Workforce that requires corporate America to keep our jobs in the US or face serious tax implications.

We have to get back to basics. We must launch intense organizing campaigns with organizers that are hands on and reflective of the groups they are attempting to organize. Successful organizing, in my opinion, is more about relationships, than methodology. Organizing is difficult work and successful organizers must be committed to their campaigns which at times seem never ending. Organizers must build relationships and understand both the work and the problems that the workers have in the workplace. CWA must continue to provide guidance and direction until newly organized members become self-sustaining and understand the logistical responsibilities of all three sides of our CWA Triangle,

We must focus on Internal Organizing first. The percentage on nonmembers within some divisions within our Union is not good. Applying both grass roots tactics along with modern proven techniques which includes education and member outreach is essential. We must have better up to date communications technology to engage our younger and more seasoned members faster and with sound messaging.

We must also capitalize on every External Organizing opportunity. In order to do that, we must secure enough Organizers, at our Locals level to meet this demand. CWA has countless organizing opportunities that we can no longer afford to ignore. We must do a better job of organizing our Mobility members. In my opinion, we still have unorganized workers in industries similar to units we organized like, Dish, T-Mobile, Verizon wireless, etc. that we should again focus on. The Public Sector and Airline Industry, both Passenger Services and Flight Attendants, are some of the fastest growing sectors in our Union we must continue to support organizing in those sectors. We must continue to grow our Union through as many organizing campaigns as possible.

Sara Steffens: The only way to protect our jobs is to build our power at AT&T.

Building the leverage we need must be a national project across our contracts and job titles including workplace mobilization, public campaigns, shareholder actions, political pressure and more.

Organizing nonmembers and non-union shops is key: We must build our density in every open shop, with resources available to Locals that need help signing up nonmembers, and accountability for those that do not care to take on this work.

AT&T needs to see that wherever they move our work, we will follow – starting by organizing authorized retailers and contractors. Every store that votes to join CWA helps us represent all our AT&T members. And there’s never been a better time to do this work, with retail workers’ interest in unions at its highest level in decades and the NLRB allowing workers to create bargaining units at the store level.

Internally, we need to build our steward structure, commit to training members and working the CWA Strong program, and double down on our efforts to build CWA membership and union density in the overarching telecom, tech and media sector.

Everything we do CWA leaders should be aimed at building power for our members. And we know that our organizing model works: Since 2019, more than 25,000 workers have joined CWA.

Question #4:
Open bargaining means that contracts are negotiated with transparency for the membership that will have to live under them. Open bargaining lets the members see what we are fighting for at the bargaining table and what the companies are trying to low-ball or take away. In Minnesota, the Nurses union and the Minneapolis Teachers union are using open bargaining and have won major gains.

Will you support expanding open bargaining for CWA contracts?
What would you do to make Open Bargaining the "norm" in CWA?

Ed Mooney: No Response Received

Claude Cummings, Jr.: Every contract I have negotiated has been based on transparency, trust and leadership ability. When bargaining is taking place in District 6, we send out bargaining reports, we have Officer meetings to give updates and we have town hall calls to give updates to the membership.

That said, bargaining logistics are local decisions that are often dictated by contractual language or mutually agreed to rules that are negotiated at the table by both the union and the company prior to bargaining kickoff. I believe what we need to do differently, in CWA, is better preparation, better coordination between district bargaining committees and meetings with the members on what we are trying to accomplish at the bargaining table based on the member’s bargaining proposals. We need a national mobilization committee that will support and train activists, in districts or sectors, to support bargaining taking place regardless of the district or sector. There should be nationwide mobilization for any district or sector that is in bargaining.

I would like to add that I am extremely open minded and a firm believer in keeping current with changing times. However, I believe the way we bargain now works well when there is transparency, reports are given regularly, and when we have members involved in strong mobilization activities.

I want to be transparent: I have not personally experienced Open Bargaining in my District. I am open minded about this change, however a commitment to change the present bargaining process at this time, without further evaluation, and understanding language in other contracts would be deceitful. My District 6 members know this about me, and you will learn quickly when I become President, I will not lie to you and I am VERY transparent. I am open minded, I am willing to look at ANY changes members would like to see within the confines of the CWA Constitution and our present bargained contracts.

I will be the President, not a dictator. I am one that strongly respects district boundaries. I believe this is an issue that will need to have input from the new VPs, and Sector Officers, their members and bargaining committees - because they are the signatories on their agreements. The commitment I am willing to give is, I will have a discussion with the Executive Board about this issue.

Sara Steffens: I support open bargaining when it’s needed to hold employers accountable, to increase member engagement or to build trust between workers and their bargaining representatives. It’s particularly useful in situations like bargaining kickoff, or where an employer’s asks are egregiously offensive. Our union is stronger when our members participate in bargaining.

But open bargaining is never an end in itself – it’s one among many tools to engage members and increase our leverage at the table. Productive bargaining also requires that we keep channels open to find common ground and reach timely agreement. Just getting the membership mad is never enough – we always need a well-constructed plan to win a fair and equitable contract.

Question #5:
CWA brags about its power and influence within the political system - especially the Democratic Party - but when politicians stab workers in the back (like Biden did with the railroad union workers) there is little said or done. Meanwhile Trump and the fascist right organize using fake-populist rhetoric and are a serious threat to unions and the community.

Do either party really represent working-class interests?
Are Corporate politicians any real protection against fascist threats?
Why should we continue to pour millions of dollars and time and energy into corporatecontrolled politicians?
What percentage of movement building should be put into efforts outside of the political system?

Ed Mooney: No Response Received

Claude Cummings, Jr. : I have a cousin that is a Passenger Train Engineer. Although he was very disappointed in what happened during their negotiations, he was also concerned that a railroad strike, coming out of an already fragile economy, would be devastating for this country, and adversely affect many workers and Union members.

I am moving away from Party Politics. If a candidate supports Unions and working people, I have no problem talking with them about support. If they don’t support Unions or workers, they don’t get my support. I am very disappointed in Democrats that vote like Republicans and Republicans that don’t do anything to help pass legislation to help working people, build worker power on this job by joining a Union. Both Parties have failed us on the Pro Act.

In D6, I have gotten away from Party Politics and support candidates that support working people issues. I have reduced my direct contributions to candidates by a large percentage. I am a proponent of Independent Expenditure (IE) that work to Get Out the Vote (GOTV). Our GOTV efforts have been great in electing worker friendly candidates because our resources are spent strictly on door knocking, media and phone banking. I am frustrated at candidates that spend our money, on signs, consultants and fundraisers.

As President I will encourage our Political Department to educate Districts and Locals on the need to put resources on the ground through IEs, for worker friendly candidates, not in their pockets, in order to get them elected. I also have great relationships with wealthy donors, that donate to our IE GOTV efforts which has helped reduce the amount of resources used by CWA. I will solicit more wealthy donors for our GOTV programs to support our financial efforts to elect Congress Members and Senators to pass the Pro Act. I also believe we should collaborate with other organizations to increase our capacity in our GOTV efforts.

Sara Steffens: Corporate Democrats have too long blocked real gains for workers – including those who have failed year after year to stand for workers’ rights, labor law reform and democracy. I support the pledge of the CWA Executive Board to not give a single dollar to any politician who does not support the PRO Act or the other core issues critical to our members – and I’ve carried that warning in person to the House Democratic Caucus.

But we are still better off with pro-worker politicians in charge.

For example: Democrats repealed Michigan’s so-called “right-to-work” laws, while GOP-controlled Florida has launched an all-out attack on our CWA members in the public sector. In Minnesota, the Democratic Farmer Labor party (DFL) has banned captive audience meetings. Every election has real consequences for our members. If unions and working people sit out, corporations push to revoke even more of our rights in ways that can reverberate for generations. And the attacks hit hardest for those with the least power historically: women, people of color, immigrant families and LGBTQIA+ communities.

So, it’s not an either/ or, but a yes/ and: We have to live in the world we have while we build the world we want and need.

Biden isn’t perfect, but he gave us a card-carrying union member as Labor secretary, and appointed the most pro-worker NLRB General Counsel ever, former CWA attorney Jennifer Abruzzo, who is fighting every day to defend workers’ rights in unprecedented ways.

No single politician can fix our broken democracy, voting rights and labor law. True and lasting reform requires a broad-based movement of working people standing with our siblings who are fighting for racial, economic and climate justice – including direct action whenever necessary.

Question #6:
The strike is the traditional weapon of the working-class - and the method where we have won most of our benefits and rights - but some union leaders seem afraid to use it, or even plan for it. At a time when striking workers were winning significant gains our AT&T Legacy T contract was extended without a strike vote, and the DTV and Mobility Orange contracts were settled without a strike vote, and at the 2021 CWA Convention a resolution to simply research and plan for a strike at AT&T was ruled unconstitutional. AT&T has CWA divided up into a dozen different contracts with different expiration dates - we are divided, they are ruling.

What would you do to overcome the division of AT&T and DirecTV workers into different contracts?
The Civil Rights movement often defied unjust laws to win justice for the community - would you be willing to challenge unjust labor laws that handcuff workers the same way?

Ed Mooney: No Response Received

Claude Cummings, Jr.: AT&T did not request or ask for our opinion, ideas or suggestions on this move [to spin-off DirecTV]. I was very clear prior to the start of bargaining that CWA wanted ONE contract. We had no input in the formation of DTV - this breakout was entirely a decision by AT&T management.

Despite these facts, when AT&T approached CWA at the National level requesting to enter into negotiations to consolidate the 10 DTV contracts, we were clear we wanted all the contracts absorbed into one. CWA at the National level held discussions with the company and ultimately agreed to enter into negotiations. Unfortunately, the company did not uphold their end of the bargain. Almost immediately after kickoff, DTV demanded four different contracts instead of one for the members they transitioned into DTV.

After numerous unsuccessful discussions to advise the company that we were not willing to divide our members. CWA clearly stated our position: “ONE COMPANY ONE CONTRACT” which is what we agreed to when we entered into negotiations. Unfortunately. the company refused to live up to their end of the bargain so we walked away from the table refusing to agree to divide our members.

District 6 also filed a lawsuit on the Constructive Discharge of our members when the company terminated their employment with AT&T by forcing them to DTV with no regard to their contractual obligations.

Through mobilization, we must hold the company’s feet to the fire and make them understand that this is truly one company and the members should have one contract.

As far as defying anti-Labor rules - yes I would. I have already been active in the political arena fighting for the rights of workers. I have been active in lobbying Senators and Congress members on the need for the Pro Act to be passed to stop the intimidation and adverse action towards workers that want to build worker power on the job by forming or joining a Union.

During the Obama administration I was asked by President Cohen to address the Congressional Black Caucus on Capitol Hill to address how the Trans-Pacific Partnership would further destroy workers in this country by shipping more jobs overseas. Also missing in the TPP language was language to protect workers in other countries. Now deceased, Congressmember John Lewis, stopped me after my presentation, shook my hand, and agreed with me that TPP would be devastating to all workers. He committed to me that he would urge the members of the caucus to vote against the bill, and they did. Although all of Labor was lobbying against the TPP bill, I think that meeting turned the tide. President Obama was the first President in our lifetime who failed to have a trade bill passed. I would like to think, since the vote was taken shortly after my presentation, that I played a large part in it failing. I will do everything I can to use the political clout I have earned over my continuous thirty-six years as an officer of CWA, to stop bad worker legislation and work to pass worker friendly legislation.

Sara Steffens: Regardless of expiration dates, we must build solidarity and mobilize our members across bargaining units at AT&T and other common employers, with the understanding that we are truly stronger together.

Strikes are our strongest weapon, but must always begin with a clear plan to win and to return members to work. Our readiness to strike depends on full buy-in from all affected units.

I’m always ready and willing to get in “good trouble” when our freedom is at stake – and that includes our freedom to organize and act collectively as union members. Where our current labor laws are stacked against workers, we must fight by every means we have, including challenging unjust laws and even risking arrest.

- End - 

Attachments:

Claude Cummings Responds	[Claude Cummings Responds]	269 kB
Sara Steffens Responds	[Sara Steffens Responds]	275 kB

Details

Last Updated: 26 June 2023

CWA Presidential Candidates Forum

CWA Presidential Candidates Forum

Our Local CWA 7250 recently partnered with several other CWA Locals to host a historic CWA Presidential Candidates Forum, featuring all of the announced candidates for the International union's top office: Claude Cummings, Jr (Vice-President of District 6), Ed Mooney (Vice President of District 2-13), and Sara Steffens (CWA Secretary-Treasurer) - the forum was hosted by our Local on zoom and filled up quickly with our members and CWA officers and activists from across the country. The CWA T&T National Mobilization Committee helped us out greatly by airing a LIVESTREAM of the forum on their website cwamobilize.com. Secretary-Treasurer Chad Perkins ran the zoom meeting, Exec. Vice-President Kasie Garcia was time keeper, and Local President Kieran Knutson hosted/facilitated.

Initially CWA 7250 had proposed that the forum be sponsored and run by the CWA MN State Council, but only a minority of Locals in the state were interested. We worked with the Minnesota Locals that supported the idea, 7203, 7270, and 7304 - to get the Forum going and all three candidates quickly signed on. We soon had more Locals signed on as sponsors: 7050 (AZ/NM), 7110 (IA), 7500 (ND/SD), and the Guild/CWA 39521-Freelancers Unit - with several others around the country showing interest. At least 300 viewers watched the Forum live.

Each of the candidates were able to give a short introduction, a longer stump speech, and closing remarks - but the heart of the event turned out to be the separate Question and Answer sessions where each candidate got questions from members of the sponsoring Locals (including each of our AVPs areas: Ann Jensen for DTV, Michelle Richardson for the AT&T Call Center, Larry Thompson for Retail, and Sean McCawley for the Techs).

The questions ranged from lack of a Work from Home strategy, to fighting racism within the union, why DTV was cut up into multiple contracts, organizing the non-union "Authorized Retailers", the role of smaller Locals within the CWA, and much much more. We have received lots of thanks from across the union for helping make this Forum happen - we are grateful for everyone who helped out and participated. Our goal was to make sure rank & file workers got to hear directly from the candidates about their history, vision, and plans - and to press the candidates on the issues important to workers - we think this was a successful start towards that end.

To watch the full Candidates forum go to: https://cwamobilize.com/2023/05/31/cwa-national-presidential-candidatesforum/

Details

Last Updated: 26 June 2023