Union Democracy Review
May 1999
No. 124
Published by the Association
for Union Democracy
by Herman Benson
Serious charges were brought against Arthur A. Coia, international
president of the Laborers Union by Inspector General Douglas Gow and vigorously prosecuted
by Attorney Robert Luskin. After extensive argument and testimony by a raft of witnesses,
Hearing Officer Peter Vaira exonerated Coia, except on a single charge; and on that
charge, Coia was hit with a substantial fine, $100,000, but permitted to remain in office.
The U.S. Justice Department says it is disappointed with the finding, and it urges Luskin
to challenge the verdict in an appeal to the union's Appellate Officer.
To me, most of the charges were puzzling, but the exoneration was
equally puzzling. There seems to be some kind of strange mismatch here because the charges
rest on one plane while the exoneration exists on another, almost as though Coia was found
innocent of accusations that were not brought against him.
Essentially, Luskin charged that in the past Coia was guilty of
tolerating organized crime in the union by not acting vigorously against it. A close
reading of Vaira's decision, however, indicates that the spirit, or core, of his finding
was that Coia had not actively served organized crime and was not its tool, an accusation
that was never quite brought against Coia by Luskin, whose main case was based mostly, but
not exclusively, not on what Coia did do, but on what he failed to do. (The one charge on
which Coia was found guilty and fined was for an act of commission.)
The charges and trial procedure arose out of the 1995 consent
agreement between the government and the union under Coia's leadership: In return for the
Justice Department's decision not to file a RICO corruption suit against the union, which
would have asked a federal judge to remove the whole LIUNA officialdom, the union agreed
to a kind of self-policing arrangement to rid itself of organized crime and corruption.
By agreement with the government, Gow, Luskin, Vaira, and
Eggleston were appointed to their posts of inspector general, special attorney, hearing
officer, and appellate officer.
That agreement has been extended from time to time, with the
government reserving the right, whenever it is not satisfied with the clean-up progress,
to implement the consent agreement and take over direct control of the union. From the
union side, the agreement was supported by Coia, the same now caught in the net he helped
create.
The peculiar aspect of the charges is that they are based on
actions (mostly upon inactions) of Coia while he was secretary treasurer and the general
president of the Laborers, but in the period before the consent agreement and before he
had agreed to the current cleanup process.
As a union leader, even in the pre-agreement period, Luskin
charged, Coia had the legal and moral obligation to act vigorously against racketeering in
the union. Instead, go the charges, he got his job as secretary treasurer with the
blessing of the mob; then he tolerated it and maintained suspiciously close personal
relations with some organized crime figures.
But he was not charged with being part of the mob, or of being its
tool, or even of actively serving its interests.
[Except in one instance where he appointed Frank Serpico, whom he
knew was part of the Chicago mob, as chairman of a hearing panel with an annual salary of
$100,000. Coia's explanation is, if not a justification, mostly credible, even though the
details are cloudy.
Serpico had been the choice of the Chicago mob to become LIUNA
president upon the death of President Angelo Fosco in 1989. But Coia outmaneuvered him and
got himself chosen.
Then to mollify and neutralize Serpico and reduce his authority,
Coia argues, he appointed him to a position where he had no significant union or patronage
powers.
The explanation is credible because it squares with a familiar
sordid practice in the labor movement of buying off suspect officials.
To get rid of Edward Hanley from the Hotel Union, the government
permitted him to retire with a swollen bag of pensions and severance payments. The Service
Employees did the same for Gus Bevona in Local 32B/J; AFSCME, for Stanley Hill in DC 37.]
The charge on which Coia was found guilty and fined $100,000 is in
a class by itself.
An auto leasing company doing a lucrative business with the union
performed complex financial favors for Coia which enabled him to buy a $450,000 luxury
antique car and to avoid paying about $80,000 in assorted taxes on the transaction.
Should the penalty have been more severe? Should he have been
removed from office? Perhaps. The question should be answered in the context of the larger
issues in the union.
But returning to the main issue: Did Coia, tolerate organized
crime in the union? Did he fail to act against it? Was he guilty in that earlier period of
"appeasement and acquiescence" to the mob?
After reading Luskin's charge, and Coia's defense, and Vaira's
not-guilty verdict, and post-hearing comments by Luskin, it seems that Luskin has
demonstrated the validity of that charge by overwhelming evidence.
This is not surprising. The construction industry is a cesspool of
corruption. It is almost impossible to survive in that world, at any level, without being
touched by the corrupt system: by closing ones eyes or remaining silent before the
obvious, or by accepting its benefits, or by actively participating in it, or by crushing
those who resist it. For anyone to rise to a position as high as Coia's without
consciously tolerating that system and working within it, would be impossible.
"If Coia should be removed for appeasing the mob
in the days before the consent agreement then the whole leadership of the union, from top
to bottom, obviously was guilty of the same offense."
Yes, Luskin's charge was surely justified. Yet, there is something
odd here.
The charges relate to the pre-agreement period. In 1995, when the
agreement was signed, all the facts were known to the government and served as the basis
for its threatened RICO suit. (With the possible exception of the auto deal.)
Yet, Coia was permitted to serve once he agreed to the
self-policing program. In fact, Luskin, even while presenting his charges, refers to
"the credit he [Coia] richly deserves for fostering the reform process." In its
release expressing disappointment with Vaira's finding, the government notes a certain
satisfaction with the reform process.
The anomaly is this: If sanctions should be taken against Coia
now, even up to his removal, for appeasing the mob in the days before the consent
agreement, then the whole leadership of the union, from top to bottom obviously was guilty
of that same offense.
None of those in power acted to fight corruption and racketeering.
Then the whole leadership is suspect. But since the government knew all that in 1995, the
whole basis for the consent agreement, in retrospect, is called into question.
If Coia should be removed for past inaction, then so should the
rest of the leadership. If Coia goes, but the rest of the officialdom remains, the one
official that embraced reform, for whatever motive, is not likely to be replaced by a more
desirable substitute.
It seems to me that if the charges justify his removal, they apply
to all the others, so that the only logical response would be, not simply to remove Coia,
but to enforce the terms of the consent agreement and take direct control of the union and
the reform process.
Vaira, as judge and jury, found Coia not guilty, but not guilty of
what?
Luskin argued that Coia, as a high official of the union, had to
be held to a strict legal and ethical standard. That he was obligated to take active
measures against the mob and should have done so. Vaira evaded that question.
Instead he imposed upon Luskin the burden of proving what he had
not really set out to demonstrate. Vaira asked whether Coia had actively associated with
organized crime figures and whether he had actively served the interests of the mob.
Luskin argued that Coia had failed to act against the racketeers.
Vaira demanded proof that Coia had acted deliberately for the mob. And since Luskin failed
to produce such proof by a preponderance of the evidence, Coia was off the hook.
The problem with the charges is that they deal four years
belatedly with the derelictions of an even more distant past. The problem with the Vaira
verdict is that it gives Coia a clean bill of health for those very failings.
In its press release, the government says rightly that there has
been encouraging progress in four years of the consent agreement. The days are gone when
an insurgent could be publicly beaten on the convention floor. There is not an absence of
fear but substantially less fear.
Members feel freer to run for office. In the last election of
national officers, supervised by outside monitors, several incumbents were opposed by
insurgents. In a trustworthy referendum members voted to require the direct election of
all national officers. But there is a long, long way to go before LIUNA can be considered
a safely democratic and decent union.
In the early days of the
consent agreement, at least a hundred laborers complained of favoritism and
intimidation in the hiring halls.
The model hiring hall
rules propounded by the union are excellent on paper but mean nothing in practice.
By this time there have surely been hundreds of hiring hall
complaints. Nothing here has changed.
The monitors have never even reported on the outcome of those
complaints.
The union's general executive board rejected proposals by the
monitors for outside supervision of local elections.
Members complain that Vaira fails to act vigorously to protect
their rights in their locals.
The union maintains a district council system which, as in
Connecticut, undercuts the right of members of vote on dues increases and contract
ratification.
Neither the case against Coia nor the decision exonerating him face up to these
issues, so important in the life of any union.
Whether Coia goes or stays, these issues remain and with them the
need to strengthen enforcement of the reform mechanism.
In his post-hearing brief, Luskin wrote, "Loud proclamations
of bold initiatives, unaccompanied by serious measures, produce only deep cynicism. Thus,
when leaders fail to deliver on their promises, the problems they claim to be addressing
become even more intractable."
Exactly! But the problem lies not in Coia's past but in the present and future of the reform process.
What's the real story in Laborers' hiring halls?
Association for Union Democracy
500 State Street
Brooklyn NY 11217
phone: 718 855-6650
fax: 718 855-6799
aud@igc.org
www.uniondemocracy.com
The Association for Union Democracy is a national pro-union non-profit that promotes the principles and practices of internal union democracy in the North American labor movement.
Union Democracy for a Strong Labor Movement