Stains on the Image of Organized Labor
THERE was a time when the sympathies of the public were, by and large, with the efforts and goals of union labor. The workingman was being exploited by long hours, wretched working conditions and miserly wages. To improve their lot, laborers organized. As a result, wages greatly increased, working conditions improved and hours of work decreased to forty, or even to thirty-five, a week.
These gains, however, have not been realized without certain losses. The unions have not been immune to the unethical practices that are rampant in other segments of society. A case in point involves the coal miners.
The United Mine Workers
There was a time when the leadership of the union of the coal miners had a reputation for being concerned with the man working in the mines. But not long ago a researcher reported: “Corruption and murder have stained the image of the once-proud United Mine Workers of America.” What had happened?
Some of the rank-and-file members became dissatisfied with the corruption in high places and began to campaign for a change in leadership. But they were defeated in a flagrantly dishonest election, and their own candidate, together with his wife and daughter, was murdered.
Before those shocking murders the federal government had turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the miners, but now it stepped in and ordered another election. That strictly supervised election defeated the former corrupt management. Investigations and confessions resulted in no less than five persons being convicted and imprisoned, with more officials yet to be tried.
New York’s Uniformed Firefighters Association
A situation involving leaders of New York city’s Uniformed Firefighters Association has added to the stains on the image of organized labor. How?
Union officials ordered a strike on November 6, 1973, in violation of the law and in defiance of a court injunction. They claimed that an overwhelming majority of the firemen had voted for the strike. But what were the facts? A majority of the men had voted against it. Among the many firemen who were embittered by it all was one who had written a best seller about what it means to be a fireman. As reported in the New York Times, his sentiments were:
“We all thought that the majority of the uniformed force wanted a strike, because of the announcement of the ‘overwhelming vote’ for it. With that assumption, the fireman was forced to choose between his commitment to his union and to his profession. I voted against the strike, but when it came, I went out. . . . But what has disillusioned me and most of the men I work with is that, had the actual count of the strike been published [their officials immediately destroyed the ballots], we would never have been out on the street. Guys are really torn.”
The three union officials who conspired to falsify the union vote were arrested. In an indictment handed down by a grand jury, the three men were charged with “reckless endangerment of life and property, attempted coercion of city officials during bargaining negotiations, obstructing governmental administration and conspiring to commit each of these crimes.”
Other Wrongdoing by Officials
During 1972 alone, the U.S. Department of Labor reported seventy-three convictions of embezzlement from union treasuries, welfare and pension funds by union officials, and that in spite of the fact that very meager investigative forces were at work.
It is not surprising, then, that there are lawyers who devote all their time to handling suits brought by members against their union officials. One employee collected $342,000 from the Communications Workers Union. The court sustained his claim that he had been fired at the instance of his union bosses because he had asked to see who paid the fare of the wife of a local union president when she accompanied him on a business trip.
Union officials also stain organized labor’s image when they “milk” their unions by using their influence to hold from two to six jobs in the union, getting high salaries for each job. Thus, while the head of AFL-CIO holds only one job and draws just under $75,000 a year, lesser officials often get more. One collected $124,000 in 1972; another, $172,000; still another, $185,000 plus expenses; another was able to collect (together with his wife) $165,000 in addition to a $50,000-a-year expense account. According to The Wall Street Journal, there are literally hundreds of union executives who manage to hold down two or more jobs within the union and which sometimes total as much as $100,000.
Among other abuses that union members often suffer are their being forced to pay in cash for “work permits,” “working assessments,” “special assessments,” and “voluntary contributions,” in order to get jobs, especially in the construction industry. In some union locals no man can change his job without the permission of the local’s president. Union members often feel helpless when confronted with such practices.
Violence by Construction Workers
It should be realized, however, that union officials are not the only ones that have caused stains on the image of organized labor. At times the rank-and-file workers have been guilty of the same. When there is violence against nonunion projects and workers, the union bosses do not handle it all themselves.
Thus, the New York Times, November 9, 1973, under a heading “Nonunion Site Vandalized by Construction Workers,” said: “About 300 construction workers stoned and vandalized a building being renovated on the northwest corner of 11th Street and Broadway for more than an hour yesterday morning.” A free-lance photographer, a neighbor, stated: “It was about 7:15 when I was awakened by this tremendous roar and windows being smashed. They closed off 11th Street and went at that building like maniacs.” Another neighbor, a university instructor, termed the scene “a gigantic free-for-all. They would pick up bricks and run up and smash windows and run back as if the building would bite back.” Another witness stated: “I can’t tell you the fear I felt. They were like some savage beast with incredible fury.” The damage was estimated to be between $25,000 and $50,000. No arrests were made.
Shocking as this incident was, it was not the only one. In Philadelphia, a crowd of 1,000 union workers caused more than $300,000 of damage to nonunion construction in forty-five minutes. In Memphis, Tennessee, a $1,600,000 building, almost completed, was dynamited, causing a loss of almost half a million dollars. In fact, in 1972 there were 172 such incidents in twenty-six states, accounting for damages running into many millions of dollars. Workers and even police have been severely beaten, some suffering permanent injury, and not a few have been killed in this war upon nonunion construction.
Regarding violence at Kalkaska, Michigan, which cost more than $500,000, the Detroit Free Press said: “Whatever the merits of arguments against non-union construction work, the unionists’ violence is inexcusable. The unions are not only losing public support, but the support of the workers themselves. Getting their public image back up . . . is going to be a difficult task.”
Why all this violence? One reason is that more and more nonunion labor is replacing union labor due to the ever-spiraling cost of union work. As the Engineering News Record of February 24, 1972, reported, a union master mechanic who never used a tool earned $94,000 in one year. It also gave many examples of what is known as “featherbedding,” which is the practice on the part of some labor unions of forcing employers to hire more men than are needed for a particular job.
There are other factors, too, that help to account for all this violence. Powerful and rich labor unions contribute generously to the campaign chests of politicians. In addition, they deliver votes. So politicians, high and low, prefer to turn the other way when unions engage in criminal violence.
The problem obviously is not limited to the unions. The entire worldly system of things is shot through with greed and corruption. What is happening the Bible long ago foretold. (2 Tim. 3:1-5) The Bible also points to the remedy—not the makeshift sort that replaces one set of leaders with others who are likewise imperfect and hungry for power. Instead, it turns our attention to God’s kingdom and explains how it will soon take over the administration of all earth’s affairs. Only then will righteousness prevail.—Dan. 2:44; 2 Pet. 3:13.