Email this article to a friend.
Previous Article: IATSE showdown in Waikiki
Next Article: Battling corruption in the ILA, a partial chronology
AUDHome--> Union Democracy Review--> Articles
SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!
From the July-August 2005 issue of Union Democracy Review #157
Feds file suit vs. rackets in ILA longshore union
On July 6, after years of investigation and long delay, the U. S. Department of Justice filed a civil suit in the Eastern District of New York against the International Longshoremen's Association and its top officers. The ILA represents some 45,000 workers on docks and in warehouses along the East Coast. (West Coast dock workers are represented by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Harry Bridges's old union, not involved in this suit.)
The suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, aims "to end organized crime's control of the ILA and its benefit funds...." It asks the court immediately to remove four of the union's top officers and bar them for life from interfering in the affairs of the ILA and its funds. It calls for a new election of officers and international executive council members under court supervision. Until the election can be held, it proposes that a court-appointed officer exercise the authority of the ILA executive council, except for collective bargaining, to eliminate corruption and protect membership rights.
In this instance, as in other government suits against racketeering in unions, federal action followed an inability of the labor movement to act against organized crime.
In 1953, the American Federation of Labor expelled the ILA, declaring in one statement, "The ILA has permitted gangsters, racketeers, and thugs to fasten themselves to the body of its organization...For such there is no place in the AFL." But apparently there really was a place. In 1959, unchanged, the ILA was readmitted to the AFL-CIO. All was forgiven if not forgotten.
The labor movement failed for lack of action. The government failed to find a lasting cure despite a frenzy of activity. For over fifty years, beginning with the 1951 NYS investigation into waterfront crime, government authorities have tried to eradicate the mob from the East Coast docks and from the ILA. But after decades of action by government authorities, criminal and civil, against individual union leaders, organized crime figures, some employers, and many union locals, it didn't work, because each time one, or a dozen, went to jail, their twins provided willing replacements.
With this suit, the first against the international union, comes the government's nuclear option. It was a long time in coming. Now, the government reaches beyond individuals to reorganize the whole system. Four of the top officers are to be removed immediately and barred for life. If the government succeeds in court, as is likely, a federal monitorship will remain, presumably until the job of freeing the union from corruption is completed.
Skeptics will ask: Can it succeed this time after all else failed? But optimists can reply that this time there is a new element: A strong organized reform movement, independent of the old officialdom, has emerged up and down the east and gulf coasts. The movement first arose among African-American longshoremen after a bitter strike in 2000 in Charleston, South Carolina, led to felony charges against some of the rank and file leaders. Led by Ken Riley, president of Local 1422, the Longshore Workers Coalition (LWC) led a successful campaign in their defense. The LWC was formed as an independent caucus of local leaders and rank and filers in the South, most of them black. They initiated a campaign for strengthened union democracy including the direct membership election of international union officers.
Meanwhile, up North in New Jersey, a federal trusteeship was imposed on Local 1588, a local of mostly white workers. Now protected somewhat from mob domination, a reform caucus slowly took shape in this Northern local.
When ILA members were called on to vote on ratifying a new collective bargaining agreement the caucus in Local 1588 joined with supporters of the LWC in a campaign for a "no" vote on what they felt was an excessively concessionary contract. Reformers, North and South, black and white, racked up 45% of the votes. They are convinced that the balloting was mishandled and that they could have won in a fair count. In any event, regardless of the pros and cons of the referendum procedures, the emergence of a unified reform movement of Southern blacks and Northern whites, above all in this kind of union, is itself a spectacular achievement.
For the first time in decades, a substantial organized constituency for change offers hope for successful long-term reform.
What comes next? If the union does come under court monitorship, the 16-year experience of monitorship over the Teamsters union can serve as a guide. In general, the monitors can provide the democratic tools that enable members to keep their union clean and democratic; but neither government nor monitors can substitute for the members, because integrity and democracy in the ILA, as in the labor movement, depends upon a free and enlightened union membership.
In this connection, in its petition to the court for remedies, the complaint leaves some decisive issues incomplete or ambiguous.
The government repeatedly stresses the need to protect membership rights. At some point it must make clear that the right of all members to speak or run for office, and work in dignity will be protected against retaliation, not only by suspect union officers, but also by collusive employers, who can be just as dangerous.
The complaint calls for new elections under court supervision, but it makes no reference to the method of election, which is critical. The ILA now elects top officers at its convention by vote of delegates. To make it possible for voters to break through the old political machine, the system must be changed to direct vote of the membership. Elections must be supervised not only in the international but in the locals, with election rules that permit candidates to reach the voters.
The text of the suit makes clear that the government wants to stay out of collective bargaining, which is a wise decision, both in principle and in practice. Presumably the newly elected international executive council will retain power over bargaining. (It is not clear who presides until elections are held.) In any event, the monitors can insist on the establishment of democratic controls like the election of stewards, rank and file involvement in the formulation of demands and the selection of bargaining committees, advance disclosure of the terms of any proposed contract and membership ratification in supervised referendums after full discussion.
Other articles on
the ILA:
Mob ousted, reformers
win in ILA Local 1588(3/07-4/07)
In
the ILA: rank-and-file action, government intervention, and a major legal victory
(7/06-8/06)
Feds file
suit vs rackets in ILA(7/05-8/05)
Battling corruption in the ILA: a partial chronology(7/05-8/05)
Reform
movement spreads in ILA (12/04-1/05)
Longshore
workers nearly reject master contract (9/04-10/04)
Question and Answer: RICO monitorship in ILA?
(9/04-10/04)
Who will police the Longshoremen's
ethics code? (1/04-3/04)
ILA Baltimore local threatened with
trusteeship (5/03-6/03)
Nine years without
a contract in ILA Lake Charles Local (3/03-4/03)
Reformers win majority in
harbor workers local 333, ILA (8/9 2002)
AUD at Charleston ILA
meeting (News 4/02)
Charleston Longshore unions win major victory 2/3 2002
"Charleston
Longshore workers lead battle for reform." 8/9 2001
Links to Longshore worker websites
Information and resources for
ILA members on this website.
Previous Article: IATSE showdown in Waikiki
Next Article: Battling corruption in the ILA, a partial chronology
This website is made possible by contributions from union members and supporters like you. Please help us build the movement for union democracy, join or contribute to AUD.
AUDHome; Legal Rights; Education; Union Democracy Review; Books; AUDLinks
Page designed by Matt Noyes, National
Writers Union/UAW, and Rachel Szekely
The Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org
104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn,
New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114; info@uniondemocracy.org
This work is licensed
under a Creative
Commons License.
Use
the following credit line on the materials you use:
"From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"
Please notify us at websteward@uniondemocracy.org when you use material from the site.
Send comments or suggestions on the website to websteward@uniondemocracy.org.