Ends Justify Means in Teamster Purge

The ancient Greek and Roman debates over whether the ends justify the means were just as relevant last week at the raucous Teamsters Union convention as they were way back then.

Among the first to get into the unresolvable argument was a Syrian slave, Publilius Syrus, who was freed when he escaped to Rome in the 1st Century and became a writer. He insisted that “foul is fair for a good cause.” The debates have continued. Among those on the other side was the brilliant Quaker, William Penn, who insisted in 1693 that “a good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil that good may come of it.”

Last week the same question was pertinent at the Teamsters’ convention in Orlando, Fla., where delegates tried in vain to recapture control of their union from the U.S. government.

The government and the courts have broken the power of mobsters who have infected the organization for decades, an obviously laudable, badly needed end. Also, democracy in the union has been substantially increased, although it already had more democracy--limited as it was--than most American corporations.

But it is being achieved by dangerous, evil means: The almost complete government control of what is supposed to be a free, private organization is being policed daily by court-appointed administrators with enormous powers. And there is no clear indication of when the government will be cleaned out of the union, even though mobsters no longer have any real influence on it.

Since there are potent legal limits on the power grab by the government, it is less evil than the pernicious influence the underworld had on many of the union’s leaders. Therefore, foul means seem to have been fair for a good cause--as of now.

But the Justice Department move was foul. With court approval, the government decided how union officers will be elected and how they can easily be charged and punished for anything from mob ties to “bringing reproach upon the union.”

The government can decide who can serve as officers, how much money the union can spend and on what. It even installed an administrator on the convention platform to give instant rulings on the way it was being run. Two other administrators and several Justice Department attorneys were on hand, and a federal judge from New York even stayed nearby to enforce their decisions.

Fortunately, the administrator on the convention platform was Michael Holland, a man of integrity who didn’t abuse his seemingly unlimited authority and who believes in the need for strong unions. Even so, Holland’s presence on the platform dramatized the government’s control of the union, which is unacceptable in a free society.

The government takeover, approved by the courts, required a new provision in the union constitution that declares that it can only be changed by a vote of convention delegates.

Despite that clear language, the constitution was changed by about a dozen of the union’s top officers--who were told by government prosecutors that if they refused, they would be tried on federal racketeering conspiracy charges.

The government said the union’s own officers agreed that the convention delegates who were chosen in government-certified elections could debate all they wanted, but they could not vote to reject the government takeover.

In defending their startling surrender to government prosecutors, several of the officers said they didn’t want to, but did it anyway because the union’s chief attorney, James Grady, assured them that their unsavory action could be dumped at last week’s convention.

When I asked if Grady lied to the officers, Walter Shea, regarded as the old guard candidate for the presidency--who signed the agreement--said: “Well, say he deceived us.”

Other top officers who signed the agreement echoed that accusation, but Grady says they all knew exactly what they were signing.

What’s the difference? If they really were deceived by their lawyer, their action was still immoral. They signed the union over to government control in 1989 based on what they say was their expectation that they would be overruled by the convention delegates last week.

The delegates did shout their anger at the government intrusion and voted to overrule the constitutional changes--approved by their officers--that allowed it. But their vote was nullified by their officers’ pact with the government. The issue is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ron Carey, a reform candidate for president of the union, was boxed in. He opposed the government action and denounced those officers who insincerely approved it.

But he realized that very action also helped democratize the union and made it possible for him to put on a viable campaign for the presidency. So he did not vote to overrule the agreement.

Supporters of R. V. Durham, front runner in the presidential race, damned the agreement, but he, like Carey, said it made his candidacy possible.

Their position on the volatile issue could be crucial in December, when the union’s 1.6 million members get to vote directly for the first time for their top officers, all of whom want to break the government’s grip on the union.

But they say they want to continue the government’s system of requiring a nationwide secret ballot vote for the union’s top officers. They also want an ethical practices committee run by “widely respected” outsiders.

The government plan calls for an independent review board to do that job, but the board would include an appointee of the U.S. attorney general who would let the government retain at least partial control. That is unacceptable to those who believe in free and independent unions.

But the union has been revolutionized, and while mobsters could again spring up like mushrooms--as Holland put it--it looks as though for now the good end is being justified by foul means.