SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (SF) - SATURDAY September 10, 1988 Edition: FINAL Section: BUSINESS Page: B1 Word Count: 980
David Tuller, Chronicle Staff Writer

The letter, signed by Robert Haas of Levi Strauss and Richard Clarke of PG& E, maintains that the "ill-conceived and dangerous measure" would "cripple AIDS education, testing, research and treatment efforts" and cost the state "tens of millions of dollars (that will) certainly be borne in part by the business community."

The letter indicates that Levi and PG&E have each pledged $5,000 to fight Proposition 102, and it urges other companies to send representatives to an October 13 fund-raising dinner at the Hyatt on Union Square.

"The initiative is phrased deceptively to appear that it is dealing with the disease in a compassionate and thoughtful way, but it's like the wolf dressed up as Grandma in Little Red Riding Hood," said Robert Dunn, vice president for community affairs at Levi Strauss. "We believed it was important for people to know that there were those in the business community who feel this proposition is bad public policy."

On Thursday, the California Chamber of Commerce announced that it, too, is opposing the measure.

The California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, the California Taxpayers Association and Senator Pete Wilson also have blasted the proposition.

When informed of the Levi-PG&E letter, tax crusader Paul Gann, a key proponent of the initiative, said he was amazed the companies would oppose the proposition. He vowed to be "on the phone every hour" seeking an explanation. "I don't understand why they're so anxious to defend people with AIDS and not protect those who don't have it," added Gann, who became infected with the HIV virus from a blood transfusion in 1982.

Among other things, Proposition 102 would:

-- Require doctors and other health care professionals - including those at corporate medical facilities - to provide to public health authorities the name of anybody who tests positive for exposure to the HIV virus, or anyone they have "reasonable cause to believe" might be infected. Doctors are currently required to report only the names of those who have a full-blown case of AIDS.

-- Allow employees to wear any kind of "protective gear that the employee deems necessary for protection against contamination" in the workplace.

-- Repeal a section of the state health code that forbids the use of HIV test results by insurers and employers.

-- Forbid anonymous testing of individuals.

Officials at Levi Strauss and PG&E say they fear that the proposition, if it passes, could seriously undermine morale in the workplace. They add that, because of the strict testing requirements, they believe those most at risk would avoid testing and treatment, facilitating rather than hampering the spread of the disease.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the proposition is the "reasonable cause to believe" provision.

Those supporting the measure say it simply seeks to treat AIDS like any other infectious disease. Yet corporate executives fear that the requirement about alerting health authorities to those suspected of HIV infection would encourage disgruntled employees to report the names of people they don't like to company medical personnel.

"It would transform the doctor-patient relationship to the kind that a citizen had with the Gestapo in Nazi Germany," said Levi's Dunn.

The action against Proposition 102 follows two highly publicized battles against initiatives sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche - Proposition 64 in the general election in 1986, and Proposition 69 in last June's primary. While both lost by wide margins, a recent poll indicated that Proposition 102 has a chance of passing.

"Everyone knew that LaRouche was not a credible person to be dictating the state's policies on AIDS," said Dana Van Gorder, the Northern California coordinator of Californians Against Proposition 102, a coalition of groups fighting the proposition. He said the involvement this time around of Gann and U.S. Representative William Dannemeyer, the Orange County Republican, lends the measure an aura of respectability.

The clout of the business sector, says Van Gorder, is critical in the fight to defeat the measure. "The swing vote on this issue will be a slightly more conservative voter, to whom the support of the business community would have enormous appeal," he remarked.

Van Gorder expects Californians Against Proposition 102 to raise $750,000 to fight the initiative, and hopes that corporate contributions will account for between 5 percent and 10 percent of the total. He approached PG&E and Levi Strauss for their help, he said, because of their opposition to the LaRouche initiatives and their efforts to promote AIDS education in the workplace.

Complicating the issue and inflaming passions on both sides are differences in interpretation of the initiative.

Brett Barbre, special assistant to Dannemeyer, stressed that the protective-gear clause is designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health care workers. Yet some opponents, who have mockingly called it "the spacesuit provision," point out that the language is broad enough to cover all workers. They have raised the spectre of employees wearing outlandish outfits simply because they think a co-worker might be gay.

"It could create havoc in the workplace and seriously impair morale," said Grant Horne, vice president of corporate communications at PG&E.

Proponents and opponents also disagree over whether the proposition will allow employers to resort to wholesale testing of prospective and current employees. Van Gorder and officials of both PG&E and Levi Strauss say yes.

Not so, insists Gann. "Anybody who says that is a damn liar, or mistaken," he exclaimed.

"It's a complex law, and it's possible that he doesn't understand what it does," countered Van Gorder. "If that's what we're up against, it's frightening." CAPTION: PHOTO (2)

(1) Robert Haas, (2) Richard Clarke

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1988. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1988. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .