Stubborn Teamsters Officers Hurt Reform

The government’s unprecedented plan to democratize the Teamsters Union and root out corrupt elements in its leadership is off to a slow and rocky start.

The somewhat encouraging news is that limited progress is being made by Charles M. Carberry, who was appointed by a federal judge as one of three private lawyers given the job of helping to clean up the union.

Action to remove at least two national Teamsters leaders has already started, and two officers in a New York local resigned after Carberry began looking into their questionable activities

Since the overwhelming majority of the union’s members and officers are honest, the plan should have a chance to succeed. But it could well fail if the top officers refuse to cooperate with the three monitors as they promised.

The cleanup operation began six months ago after the Teamsters’ top officers signed an agreement with the Justice Department pledging to help end what U.S. District Judge David Edelstein in New York called the union’s “long and sordid career of corruption and involvement with criminal elements and corrupt practices.”

Judge Edelstein then appointed the three lawyers who were put in charge of the operation: Carberry, the chief investigating officer; Frederick B. Lacey, the chief administrative officer, and Michael H. Holland, who is responsible for reforming the union’s election procedures. All are of unchallenged integrity and ability.

Their duties are to monitor the conduct of the union leaders, remove those found to be in league with the underworld and help overhaul the union’s tightly controlled system of electing its officers.

In return for the union leaders’ pledge of cooperation, the Justice Department set aside its anti-racketeering lawsuit against all of the union’s 18 executive officers who were facing trial on charges of either directly or indirectly “aiding and abetting” an infestation of racketeers. At first, the union officers seemed to be cooperating with the monitors. But Lacey now charges that the officers are trying to “dictate and circumscribe the scope” of the cleanup.

Angered, Lacey asked the Justice Department to investigate a report that the union executives had met secretly in July at the posh La Costa Country Club in Carlsbad to discuss ways that they could scuttle the reform plan.

The Teamsters officials deny the accusation, but they have attacked Lacey and the other two court-appointed monitors for the number and salaries of assistants that they are hiring and for the amount of money sought for office space.

The union leaders also accused the government monitors of squandering union money since all expenses of the cleanup operation are being paid by the union. One of their complaints is that the monitors are getting high salaries. Lacey, for example, is being paid $340 an hour as independent administrator of the entire union.

The salaries are certainly high, but they are in line with many of the nation’s lawyers and with the salaries of the top Teamsters, who are the highest paid union leaders in the world. Teamsters President William McCarthy received $590,284 from the union last year.

More critical to the ultimate success of the government’s attempt to reform the Teamsters is whether the union officers will really keep their promise to help get rid of crooks.

The value of the promise is dubious at best, though, since some of the officers who promised to cooperate in the cleanup have themselves been accused of corruption by the government.

Also critical is the proposal to have a carefully monitored referendum election in 1991, giving each of the union’s 1.6 million members a chance to vote for their top officers. Elections would continue to be held every five years.

The referendum would replace the present system, under which the top leaders are elected by delegates to the union’s conventions.

Power of the Court

Critics charge that those on top have been able to manipulate the votes of the delegates because most of them are local union officers who must depend on the good will of the higher-ranking officers for everything from money for organizing to promotions to better-paying jobs.

In theory, delegates to the 1991 convention could vote against the referendum. In practice, however, if the delegates reject the referendum, the court apparently has the power to order its use anyway.

And if that court order is stymied for some legal reason, the court and the Justice Department can scrap the reform plan entirely and renew the racketeering charges against the 18 top Teamster officials.

Some of them seem to be using word games to get around their promise of cooperation. For instance, they all promised to support the referendum plan even though most of them really want the old system that they were able to control.

Dangerous Precedent

But now some of them are saying their promises were made only in their capacity as union officers and that they can still oppose the new system if they speak against it as individuals exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

If they do, they will almost certainly be cited for contempt of court and face fines and possible jail terms for violating their signed pledge to support the referendum.

It is hazardous in a democratic country for the courts at the request of the government to appoint a few people with vast powers to help run a giant union, or any other private organization, on a daily basis--and at the expense of the organization.

But while deploring the plan as a dangerous precedent, one can still hope that it will end the corruption that has plagued the Teamsters for more than four decades.

However, it would have been far better if the leaders and members had done their own housecleaning instead of having the government try to do it for them.