24726 Express Winter.. - Communications Workers of America 1105

The 11 5
Winter 2009 | Volume 73 | Number 4
Are Corporations People Too?
When you read the beginning of the
preamble of the U.S. Constitution “We the
people…” do you immediately think of corporations or do you think of real people like
you and me? There have been some real
people, those holding the title lawyer, that
have been arguing for well over 120 years
that a corporation is for all practical purposes a person no different than you and I when
it comes to the laws of the land. In fact lawyers have chipped away at this notion successfully going back to 1886, beginning with
the Supreme Court decision in the County of
Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.
The County of Santa Clara, California filed a court action seeking $13,366.53
for assessments made by the State Board of
Equalization for the fiscal year of 1882 in
addition to a lesser sum of the fiscal year
1881. This was the first action of several
by California counties against the Southern
Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, essentially tax cases, which made their way to the
Supreme Court. The State Board of Equal-
ization was a state authority established
to assess property of the railroads that traversed multiple counties of the state and
distribute the taxes collected to the counties proportional to the miles of track that
passed through each respective county. The
Railroads contested the right of the State of
California to assess and collect those taxes,
claiming it was denied the equal protections
under the law in violation of their Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Thirteenth Amendment of
1865, which abolished slavery, was followed by the Fourteenth in 1868 to guarantee equal protection under the law
to the newly freed slaves. Section 1
of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall
continued on page 6
Presidents
Column
2
Betrayal
8
Money in
Politics
11
Work and Family
Corner
13
Organ Donation
14
2009 - 2010
Scholarship
Winners
15
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to
a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
page 1
A Message
from
Keith Edwards
We are more than one (1)
year passed bargaining and less than
two (2) years from 2011 bargaining.
The reason I bring this up is that we
are still waiting for our new contracts to go to print and the Company just continues to violate it on
a daily basis. One issue that is near
and dear to this local is the language
that we bargained to settle the Verizon Business Arbitration case. We
have been monitoring the VZB work
that is addressed in Attachment 6 of
the Memorandum of Understanding
on Page 3 (3) specifically 1 (c) (1)
which states “Effective as of October 25, 2009, the equivalent of one
hundred (100) full-time employees
performing commercial work, such
as order implementation and processing for VZB network products
and services that CWA represented
employees do not perform as of the
date of this Agreement”. Verizon
Partnership Solutions has started
their training of our members and
work has been moved from Argentina and the Philippines. The second
part of the agreement addresses the
small and medium business, also on
Page 3, 1 (c), (3) it states “Effecpage 2
tive as of October 25, 2009, the order implementation and processing
work for the sale of VSB Network
Products and services to the small
and medium size business customer
market corresponding to the same
type of work currently performed
by Representatives, Special Representatives and other commercial
titles in CWA District One, and
comparable titles in District Two,
District Thirteen and District one
in New Jersey. Service Company
shall be the sole contractor for the
work described in subparagraph 1
(c), (3) shall perform this work exclusively”. It also goes on the state
on Page 4, 2 (2) “To the extent that
CWA bargaining unit employees
currently sell to the small and medium size business customer market as of the date of the agreement,
that sales work will continue under
the applicable Labor Agreement”.
This language is very clear
and was not disputed by Verizon
until recently. The Legal Department of Verizon has made an interpretation that this work constitutes about nineteen (19) Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) people’s worth
of work and have decided that it
will all be done in Pennsylvania.
We have issued a grievance
at Third Step and have gotten an
agreement with District One to move
this case to arbitration immediately.
This is a typical ploy by a corporation, confirming that even when
something is in writing and as clear
as daylight, THEY CANNOT BE
TRUSTED. I have stated before that
lying is one of the weapons within
this Maggot Corporations Arsenal.
I have stated before in prior
articles and tape messages that Verizon has ulterior motives by changing long lasting practices and trying
to keep the Union from what their
real plan is. They first started with
their Modified Absence Control
Plan (MACP) that we are in court
with. They then decided to have
two (2) Dress Codes that they imposed by declaring impasse in violation of the National Labor Relations
Act in which we have filed charges.
They declared a surplus and
have enough work that they contract
out to vendors and foreign countries
and are refusing to bring back becontinued on page 3
Executive office: 3223 E. Tremont Ave., Bronx, N.Y., 10461
Published monthly by and for CWA Local 1105
Reprint permission granted to all union publications.
Subscription rate $2.00 per year. Of the amount paid as annual dues to CWA,
$2.00 is paid as a year’s subscription to Local 1105.
Postmaster, please forward address changes to CWA Local 1105,
3223 E. Tremont Ave., Bronx, N.Y., 10461
Keith Edwards..............................................President
Denise Hawley................................. Central Division
Paula Lopez........................ Executive Vice-President
Debbie Fazzolari.............................. Central Division
Beatrice Braun-Zapata................................ Secretary
Lillian V. Denker..............................Eastern Division
Roberto Perez............................................. Treasurer
Desiree Williams..............................Eastern Division
Frank J. Paxton .....................Vice President, Central
Patti Egan...................................... Northern Division
Nelson Zapata ...................... Vice President, Eastern
Maureen Sydnor............................ Northern Division
Robert P. Shannon...............Vice President, Northern
Paul Sapienza......................................Editor
continued from preceeding page
cause they want to show WALL
STREET they can lay people off.
Most recently we showed
Verizon letters being mailed out
to all customers telling them to
cut their cord and use their cell
phones for home and on the go.
Verizon’s response was it was an
error and those mailings were supposed to go to cable customers.
THIS WAS A COMPLETE LIE
as the New York Times dated
September 17, 2009 reporting on
CEO Seidenberg’s meeting with
Goldman Sachs’s investors stat-
ing Verizon was simply no longer
concerned with telephones that
are
connected
with
wires.
He also goes on to state that
“We don’t look any different
than Google. We can begin to
look at eliminating central offices, call centers and garages”.
All members need to wake
up and stand together. This man is
not your friend, he is not a superstar
and he has no concern for the American Workforce. Next time he visits
your location do not take pictures
with him or ask for his autograph,
tell him we want all work because
we are the best this Company has.
Seidenberg is essentially saying that
all Verizon’s landline operations are
for sale. The implications of such
a sale are predestined. We’ve seen
the impact in Hawaii. We’ve seen
the impact in Idearc. We’ve seen the
impact in the Northern New England states. In all three cases, the
quality of service declined, the new
companies were burdened by enormous debt and the number of jobs
declined and workers were asked to
take concessions in pay and benefits.
This is the time for all members to unite, mobilize and
plan a strategy to fight back.
REMEMBER IN UNITY
THERE IS STRENGTH!!
page 3
From the Desk of
Paula Lopez
“We can begin to look at
eliminating central offices, call centers and garages,” said the Chief
Executive Officer of Verizon, Ivan
Seidenberg. He was quoted as saying in a New York Times article on
September 17th. Mr. Seidenberg
was speaking at a Goldman Sachs
investor conference. He went on
to say that Verizon was simply no
longer concerned with telephones
that are connected with wires.
May I remind you that the only
telephones that were working after the horrific tragedy of
9/11 were land line telephones,
phones that are connected with wires!
Unfortunately the loss of
land line service is a fact. Not only
should the call centers sell bundled
land line, internet and video packages but they should also have had
the ability to sell bundled services
including cellular service from the
page 4
get go. Who better than your core
Representatives and Special Representatives to provide outstanding
customer service, knowledgeable
detailed explanations of all products and services and resolve any
question concerning billing? While
we now apply our knowledge and
expertise to serve our customers
with these bundling options, nonunion wireless employees have
been authorized to offer similar
bundling options when interacting
with wireless customers without
the breath and depth of our members years of experience. Every-
one wants to see Verizon continue
to prosper but we want to continue
to be a part of it. Our vested interests are on
different levels. Not only are we
employees but we are also consumers and stockholders. We are loyal
to Verizon. The call centers have
been the foundation that Verizon
(NYNEX, Bell Atlantic North and
New York Telephone) have built
their empires upon. The dedication
and hard work of the Representatives, Special Representatives,
clerical support, the engineering
department, (where our drafters
and engineering drafters draw up
the work to set the foundation to
install FIOS in all of the different
communities) and the coin department have all contributed to the
generated revenue that makes this
corporation as profitable as it is!
Without the excellent customer service and continuous sales
orders, the technicians would not
have anything to install or repair!
The employees of Verizon, the
CWA members have been the reason that the Executive Officers
of Verizon enjoy the compensation packages that they receive!
Isn’t it ironic that until recently
we couldn’t sell cellular products
and services but you could walk
into a Verizon Wireless Store and
be greeted by someone who wants
to sell you FIOS for your home?
What is wrong with that picture???
You are our eyes and ears
and anything that doesn’t seem
right, you have brought to our attention and we have investigated.
As a result of our persistence, we
have found out that currently Verizon has over 700 Marketing and
Sales jobs contracted out to vendors! This is work that we could be
doing. Work that could eliminate
any company declared “surplus”.
The entire issue of the contracting out of work is being addressed.
If Mr. Seidenberg proceeds
with his plan to reorganize the
company and that reorganization
does not include the availability
of new products and services for
the call centers and the return of
contracted out work but consists
of eliminating central offices, call
centers and garages—the impact
will be devastating and not just to
the affected employees but also to
an already struggling economy,
specifically in New York. The ever
increasing unemployment rolls will
soar to new heights. More homes
will fall victim to foreclosure and
cars will be repossessed. Public
assistance services will increase.
Does it paint a bleak picture? Yes,
it does. Could it be a reality? It depends if Mr. Seidenberg is allowed
to follow though with his plan.
Yes, we do have a contract
through August 6, 2011. In reality
2011 is not that far away. Are you
prepared? It is never too early to
prepare for 2011. Do you have a
special emergency fund set aside
that you regularly contribute to? If
not, depending on where you live
and/or work, both credit unions
are available to you. Just call the
union office for details. Remember that our politicians should hear
from you about your concerns,
specifically Verizon’s plan to
eliminate jobs. The pressure is on.
After all, we put them in office!
page 5
Are Corporations People Too?
continued from page 1
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
Shortly after the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, lawyers
on behalf of corporations began to
argue in the courts that because the
phrase “…any person…” in the last
sentence of Section 1 does not specifically say “…natural person…”
meant that its’ protections extended
to corporations as artificial persons.
The intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was made clear in the decision
of the Supreme Court of 1872 with
regard to the Slaughterhouse Cases.
In those cases parties were claiming their Fourteenth Amendment
rights were violated by an act of
page 6
the Louisiana Legislature which established
a company with exclusive rights for the
slaughter of animals.
While many of the
original parties settled
prior to the Supreme
Court review, one class
of litigants pressed on,
the butchers. In writing
for the Court Justice
Samuel F. Miller wrote:
The clause which forbids a State
to deny to any person the equal
protection of the laws was clearly intended to prevent the hostile
discrimination against the negro
race so familiar in the States
where he had been a slave…
This clear intent of the Fourteenth
Amendment didn’t stop corporations from continuing to claim in
this, and future cases, that somehow Congress intended that its protections
extended to them and
not just freed slaves.
In the County of
Santa Clara Case the
then Supreme Court
John M. Justice Harlan
writing for the majority acknowledged the
Railroads’ claim of a
violation of its’ due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment,
but went on to say that
while the claim was im-
portant in light of the recently enacted Amendment, it should only
be ruled upon if necessary to decide
the case. Justice Harlan concluded
that it was not necessary to rule on
that issue as the whole issue was
rendered moot by the court’s determination the California Board
of Equalization lacked jurisdiction
to do what it did in the first place.
It should be noted that while
Justice Harlan appeared to avoid
the issue of whether or not a corporation is a person, he was clear as
to the true intent of the Fourteenth
Amendment in his dissent in the
Plessey vs. Ferguson case of 1896
that denied rights to the very people
it was meant to protect and led to
the Jim Crowe laws of the south.
So how did this case become the
precedent referred to as the originator of the establishment of corporations as persons? It seems that
John Davis, the former president of
the Newburgh & New York Railroad, and Reporter of the U.S. Su-
preme Court at the time added a
head note to the Supreme Court
decision in the case that said:
The court does not wish to hear
arguments on the question of
whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state
to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that
it does. - Supreme Court Chief
Justice Morrison Remick Waite
And just how does the Supreme
court reporter with an obvious conflict of interest in the outcome of the
case get away with adding such a
loaded note to the actual decision?
Consider a letter that is on file at
National Archives in Washington
written by Chief Justice Waite to
John Davis in response to Davis’
memo to Waite related to the case.
I think your mem. in the California Rail Road tax cases expresses
with sufficient accuracy what was
said before the arguments began.
I leave it with you to determine
whether anything need be said
about it in the report inasmuch as
we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision.
Ever since the Santa Clara County
case the successive courts have
gone back time and again to this
case to cite as precedent the establishment or confirmation of
the rights conveyed upon corporations as persons under the law.
As recently as 1978 the Supreme Court actually expanded the
concept of corporations as persons
in the First Bank of Boston vs. Bel-
lotti case. Francis X. Bellotti acting
in his capacity of the Attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts threatened to bring criminal charges against the First Bank of
Boston if they spent money to campaign against an initiative, namely a
graduated personal income tax, that
was being considered by the Massachusetts Legislature. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 55,
8, otherwise referred to in this case
as 8, it was illegal for the Bank to
make contributions or expenditures
“for the purpose of . . . influencing
or affecting the vote on any question
submitted to the voters, other than
one materially affecting any of the
property, business or assets of the
corporation.” Relying on the prior
case law that the Court considered
continued on page 10
page 7
Forget Compromise
This is Betrayal
In the last issue of the Express the lead story was “The Public
Option is the Compromise”. The focus of the story was that Democrats,
particularly in the U.S. Senate, were
attempting to garner support for
their version of health care reform
from Republicans by continually
offering to water down, if not eliminate, the Public Option. In fact the
Public Option was a compromise
on a single payer or Medicare for
all plans. As the debate progressed
it became clear that conservative
Democrats, otherwise referred to as
Blue-Dog Democrats, were as big a
factor, if not more so, then the minority Republicans. With a 60 seat
majority, if the Democrats could
maintain party discipline, the way
the Republicans did when they were
in power, they would be unstoppable. Unfortunately not only do the
Democrats have to deal with their
Blue-Dog wing they also have one of
the two independents in their coalition, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.,
leaning to the Republican side on
Health Care reform. As a conservative Senator from a state that a
large number of insurance companies call home, this might not seem
surprising, but a closer look proves
the old adage ‘follow the money”.
In a report put out by Common Cause “Legislation under the
Influence” dated June 24, 2009
major health care interests were
spending $1.4 million per day lobpage 8
bying congress. The projected overall spending for 2009 is estimated
to exceed a half a billion dollars or
$2,600 per day per member of the
House and Senate. Per day! Between 2000 and 2008 Sen. Joe Lieberman took in $5,900,388 from
the heath care industry. Even Sen.
Max Baucus, D- MT and Chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee
who was bending over backward
to get Sen. Olympia Snowe as the
sole Republican to vote yea on the
Finances Committee’s Health Care
bill received $2,604,524 from the
health care industry during the same
period. Unfortunately money isn’t
the only connection between Senators and the health care industry.
Sen. Lieberman’s wife Hadassah has
worked for the lobbying firm of Hill
& Knowlton since March of 2005.
Among Hill & Knowlton’s clients
is the drug manufacturer Galaxo
Smith Kline. Only one month after
Hadassah Lieberman went to work
for Hill & Knowlton, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill favorable to
Galaxo Smith Kline in the areas of
vaccines and patent extensions at
the expense to the taxpayer of billions of dollars. “Consumers, businesses and insurers would pay the
price for this bill at a time when
health care costs have become an
increasing worry for individuals
and employers” appeared in the
New Haven Register editorial titled
“Lieberman Crafts Drug Company
Perk”. And Senator Lieberman is
not alone, self described moderate Democrat Senator Evan Bayh’s
wife Susan has made millions as
a Board member for Wellpoint,
the largest private health insurer.
In October of 2006 when
running for re-election to the
Senate as an Independent after losing the Democratic Party line Joe Lieberman said:
What I’m saying to the people
of Connecticut, I can do more
for you and your families to
get something done to make
health care affordable, to get
universal health insurance.
MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy
into a national insurance pool
like the health insurance pool
that we federal employees and
Members of Congress have.
Medical malpractice reform.
It will cover 95% of those who
are not covered now, and it will
reduce the pressure on rising
costs for all the millions of others.
Three years later Lieberman
said when he announced he would
filibuster the Senate health care
bill if it included the public option:
“We’re trying to do too much at
once. To put this governmentcreated insurance company on
top of everything else is just
asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt.
I don’t think we need it now.”
A Wall St. Journal /NBC
News Poll that was conducted between October 22 and 25, 2009
asked the question, “In any health
care proposal, how important do
you feel it is to give people a choice
of both a public plan administered
by the federal government and a
private plan for their health insur-
ance…extremely important, quite
important, not that important, or not
at all important?” Forty-five percent
(45%) responded “extremely important”, 27% said “quite important”,
eight percent (8%) said “not that
important” and only 15% said “not
at all important.” The 72% overall
favorability for a public option in
this poll is similar to one conducted recently by CNN. Moreover the
CNN poll indicates an upward trend
in those favoring the public option.
In CNN’s poll people were asked
“Now thinking specifically about
the health insurance plans available
to most Americans, would you favor
or oppose creating a public health
insurance option administered by
the federal government that would
compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”
61% responded “favor” as compared to 55% in August of this year.
A USA Today/Gallup poll released
October 21, 2009 even showed
59% of Americans favored imposing a surcharge on federal income
taxes for individuals with annual
incomes over $280,000 and families with incomes over $350,000.
Americans seem to know what they
want and how to pay for it. For the
major obstacle to be a Senator who
has taken a position contrary to
what he promised his constituents
and in favor of his wife’s employer is not only outrageous, but has
the stench of a conflict of interest.
The preamble to the Constitution
of the United States of America
begins, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and
our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.” It is time that
Sen. Joe Lieberman starts listening to “We the People” and our demands that our government passes
legislation to “promote the general
welfare” of it’s citizens by passing
a long overdue health care bill. Its
time to put the peoples’ interests
ahead of the corporations’ interests.
(See a related article in this issue how corporations think
they’re people too on page 1.)
page 9
Are Corporations People Too?
continued from page 7
established corporations as persons, the Court now would decide if
the corporations First Amendment
rights were being violated. They
did. While the Court did consider
that corporations were wealthy and
powerful and their views could potentially drown out other points
of view Justice Powell writing
for the majority concluded that:
“…there has been no showing that
the relative voice of corporations
has been overwhelming or even
significant in influencing referenda
in Massachusetts, or that there has
been any threat to the confidence
of the citizenry in government.”
In the interest of full disclosure the
Massachusetts law referred to as 8
in this case, that was ruled unconstitutional, had applied to labor organizations as well as corporations.
Ever
since
there has been concern as to whether or
not monies spent outside of political campaigns were having
an undue influence
on voters. Eventually Congress passed
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002 that would become known as the
McCain-Feingold
Act. The act regulated
political
campaign
financing including
prohibiting issue advocacy ads from being broadcast within
page 10
30 days of a primary or caucus
or 60 days of a general election by corporations or unions.
If up to now you think you have been
reading a quasi historical account of
an issue that does not and will not
ever affect you or your future, think
again. Despite the limitations of
McCain-Feingold bill on June 25,
2007 the Supreme Court decided
that prohibitions on ads by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. were unconstitutional because the ads were
express advocacy as it related to the
law and the court found no compelling government reason to burden
the Wisconsin Right to Life’s free
speech. The Court reasoned that
because the ads advocated a position regarding legislation before
the Wisconsin Legislature and not
actually urging voters to vote for
or against any particular candidate,
they were not violating the law.
On the heels of that decision the
nonprofit corporation Citizens United filed a complaint on December
13, 2007 in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality regarding disclaimer on, and disclosure
of funding under the appropriate
McCain-Feingold
electioneering
communications (ec) provisions. At
issue was a 90 minute film highly
critical of then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who was running for
the Democratic Party nomination
for President of the United States.
In the opinion of the District Court,
Citizen United would not win its arguments on the merits and refused
to give it preliminary relief citing
the legitimate goal of limiting the
continued on page 12
Money in Politics
Two articles that appear
in this issue of the Express, “Are
Corporations People Too?” and
“Betrayal”, highlight the problem
with money in politics, namely
how corporations can have a corrupting influence on our elected
representatives. While the majority of elected officials got in it to
make a difference, the sad reality is that to stay in it they have
to get re-elected and that costs
money. In less than one year we
will be going to the polls for the
mid-term elections. If we think
we have a fight on our hands for
meaningful health care reform
with control of the White House
and both chambers of Congress,
just think how more difficult it
will be for the rest of the progressive agenda most of us support.
If the Democrats were to make
gains in the House and the Senate instead, we could press for a
more rapid adoption of that agenda. Only you can make the difference. By pooling our donations
through the CWA political action
committee C.O.P.E. (committee
on political education) we can
make a difference. Sign up today,
for tomorrow might be too late.
To show our appreciation to first time contributors to C.O.P.E.
the following gifts are available:
Up to $4 per week - a travel mug ($2 per week suggested)
$5 or more per week - a CWA 1105 beach towel.
Fill out the card below and see your
Steward, Chief or Business Agent
page 11
Are Corporations People Too?
continued from page 10
coercive effect of corporate speech.
Unfortunately the case did not end
there. Citizens United appealed the
District Court decision to the Supreme Court. The current makeup
of the court under Chief Justice John
Roberts has not only been characterized as conservative but also corporation friendly. In fact various pundits have speculated that Roberts
and other conservative members
of the court would like to overturn
McCain-Feingold. This speculation is not just limited to pundits.
When asked for comment John McCain, Republican of Arizona and
one of the authors of the bill said:
“It was just six years ago that the
Supreme Court upheld the elec-
tioneering communications provision in McCain-Feingold and
nothing has happened in that time
to warrant the drastic step of overruling that decision. During his
confirmation hearing, Chief Justice
Roberts, whom we both voted for,
promised to respect precedent.”
How often have you heard the Republicans rail against judicial activism, a term they use to condemn
judges they claim make law from
the bench by ignoring precedent and
overturning the will of the legislature. If Senator McCain is concerned
that Chief Justice Roberts might ignore precedents and in essence violate a pledge he made to the Senator
during Roberts confirmation hear-
Moving?
Call the union office and tell us
your new address. Without it we
can’t notify you of new or changed
member benefits, bargaining updates and other important news.
Tip: pre-sort bulk mailings will not
be delivered to post office boxes.
page 12
ings, we should all be concerned.
While not considered to
be in the same voting block on the
court that Senator McCain and others worry about, the newest Justice,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a breath
of fresh air when it comes to the issue of corporate personhood. During her confirmation hearing she
actually referred to the issue and
mused that perhaps the court got it
wrong regarding corporate personhood. Actually it would probably
be more correct to say that all the
decisions upholding and expanding the concept and rights of corporate personhood that relied on
The Santa Clara case and the head
note of a court reporter were wrong.
Help!
If you or a loved one
needs help with a substance abuse problem
or is suffering from
stress or anxiety, help is
only a phone call away.
Call
Virginia Boscia
office
(718) 430-1500
cell
(646) 996-4782
Work and
Family
Corner
with
Beatrice Zapata
Deadline date for Reenrollees in Verizon’s Dependent Care Reimbursement Fund
came to an end October 30, 2009.
Former
DCRF
participants who did not re-enroll during
the open enrollment period (September 2009-October 30, 2009)
will be deleted from the “Fund”
effective October 30th, 2009.
Effective November 2009
and moving forward, eligible Verizon employees who wish to enroll for the 2009-2010 plan year
may do so by completing an enrollment application. Employees who
were formally enrolled but did not
re-enroll during open enrollment
must complete a “new” application. No retroactive reimbursements
will be paid to former participants
who did not re-enroll during open
enrollment. The effective date of
enrollment is determined by the
date the application is received
and all information is validated.
Eligible employees must
submit an enrollment application
and copy of PAGE ONE of their 2008
IRS 1040 form and 2008 W-2 form.
Married employees who file jointly
must also submit their spouse’s W-2.
Employees who are married but
filed separately must submit a copy
of their spouse’s W-2 and IRS 1040
form page one.
Complete
guidelines and application for enrollment are on our
web site at www.
cwa1105.org follow the index on
the left side page
down to CWA Verizon Work & Family
then scroll down to
DCRF application.
Local 1105
members can forward their enrollment applications
via regular U.S to
CWA Local 1105’s
Secretary Beatrice
Zapata at 3223 E.
Tremont
Avenue
Bronx, New York
10461. Be sure to include a valid
reach number and your company email address. Questions concerning
the fund can be addressed to the Secretary of the local at 718 430 1500 or
via e-mail at [email protected].
page 13
Organ Donation Saves Lives
The New York Organ Donor
Network has received the backing
of CWA Local 1105 as it rolls out its
organ donor registry drive “Sign Up
to Save Lives” throughout the greater New York metropolitan area.
More than 104,000 patients
are waiting for organ transplants in
America, and approximately 7,500
of them live right here in our metro
area. However, with only around 300
deceased organ donors each year,
and too few people signing up to be
donors, hundreds of people die needlessly because of the donor shortage.
New York State is ranked
as having one of the lowest organ
donation and registration enrollment rates in the United States.
Only 10 percent of eligible New
Yorkers – 1.8 million – have signed
up for the donor registry; many
other states boast of enrollment
rates between 60 to 70 percent.
The “Sign Up to Save
Lives” campaign encourages individuals age 18 and over to register on the New York State Donate
Life Registry. The registry is a
confidential database of legal consent. It is administered by the New
York State Department of Health.
“I am appealing to the brothers and sisters of our union to come
forward and add their names to the
registry,” said Keith Edwards, President of CWA Local 1105 “We simply have to stop the needless loss
of life of New Yorkers of all ages.
We have no hesitation in lending
our full support to the New York
Organ Donor Network’s registry
It doesn’t matter how old you are, or the color of your skin.
You can do something great today.
Sign up to be an organ donor.
Register at the DMV when you renew your license or
ID card, or at www.SaveLivesNewYork.org
page 14
drive that aims to gain one million
new sign-ups by the end of 2012.”
Elaine Berg, the New York
Organ Donor Network President
and CEO, said: “Just one organ
can save up to eight lives, and a
donor of eyes and tissues can save
or improve 50 more lives. That’s
why we are so grateful for the support of CWA Local 1105. This truly
is a case of us uniting to save as
many precious lives as possible.”
HOW TO ENROLL: New
Yorkers over the age of 18 can
enroll in the New York State Donate Life Registry at the Web site:
www.SaveLivesNewYork.org.
Those who wish to mail in their
enrollment forms can request free
brochures from the Donor Network, by calling 646-291-4458.
CWA Local 1105
Scholarship Awards
2009-2010
The CWA Local 1105 Scholarship Awards winners have been selected for 2009-2010.
Congratulations to all winners and the sponsoring members. Each winner will receive $1,105.00 from the local,
paid to their schools directly. It pays to belong to the Union. We wish all the best to the students. We want to
thank all of those who participated in the process.
The following are the winners and the sponsoring member.
2009-2010 - Northern Division
Winner - Alla Polisskaya –John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, N. Y.
Member - Irina Polisskaya – Location – 107-15 70th Rd., Forest Hills, N.Y.
Winner - Jon Weddington – Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, N. Y.
Member - Daphne Riley – Location – 1 Cross Island Plaza, Rosedale, N. Y.
Winner - Andrew Strausser – Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, N. Y.
Member - Deborah Strausser – Location – 10 County Center Rd, White Plains, N. Y.
Winner - Cara McElligott – Manhattanville College, Purchase, N. Y.
Member - Carolyn McElligott – Location – 10 County Center Rd, White Plains, N. Y.
2009-2010- Eastern Division
Winner - Avian Negron – Nassau Community College, Garden City, N.Y.
Member - Jessica Clare – Location – 199 Fulton Avenue, Hempstead, N. Y.
Winner - Kathleen Borrelli – Suffolk Community College, Selden, N. Y.
Member - Anthony Borrelli – Location – 741 Zeckendorf Blvd., Garden City, N. Y.
Winner - Jessice Jackson – Iona College, New Rochelle, N. Y.
Member - Rodney Jackson– Location – 395 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Winner - Pamela Wong – Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, N. Y.
Member - Siu Wong – Location – 395 Flatbush Ave. Ext., Brooklyn, N. Y.
2009-2010 Central Divison
Winner - Chad Bowry – Sullivan County Community College, Loch Sheldrake, N. Y.
Member - Karen Bowry – Location – 236 E. 79th Street, New York, N. Y.
Winner - Andrew Satchwell – John Jay College for Criminal Justice, New York, N.Y.
Member - Barbara Satchwell – Location – 435 W. 50th Street, New York, N. Y.
Winner - Christopher Perez – Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Ct.
Member - Kathy Iuliano – Location – 140 West Street, New York, N.Y.
Winner - Ravieshwar Singh – Vanderbilt University. Nashville, Tn.
Member - Usha Singh – Location – 204 2nd Avenue, New York, N. Y.
page 15
Communications Workers of America
CWA Local 1105
3223 East Tremont Avenue
Bronx, NY 10461
Presorted
Standard
U.S. Postage
PAID
Albany, NY
Permit No. 97
On Behalf of
the entire CWA
Executive Board
and Staff...
Happy Holidays