Teamster reform turnabout after 19 years?

a discussion piece by Herman Benson

Nineteen years ago at the 1981 Teamster convention one of

the rare Teamsters for a Democratic Union delegates, Diana

Kilmury, arose and, standing her ground, called for establish-

ing an ethical practices committee to consider charges of cor-

ruption and racketeering in the union. In his book, Collision,

Ken Crowe records what followed:

“The twenty-two hundred delegates exploded in rage,

screaming, howling, booing this woman who dared to impugn

the integrity of their union....If fear was churning her insides,

Kilmury didn’t show it.” Then—one, two, three—the detested

motion was shouted down.

a free hand to repress his

critics.

And this time, without screaming and howling, the differ-

ences were discussed publicly by partisans of both sides in

civilized fashion at the AUD conference on April 8. That

change in mood shows how far the Teamsters union and its

reformers have progressed in those 19 years.

In 1981, when Kilmury spoke out, the Teamster establish-

ment, heavily infiltrated by racketeers, was footloose and

fancy free. Unencumbered by any codes or oversight, they

were free to indulge their appetite for money and power. Any

ethical code, even the most toothless and benign, would have

been an aspersion on the quality of their character and, even

more important, a limitation on the exercise of their fiscal in-

genuity. Faced by the choice between an ethical practices code

or nothing at all, their decision was never in doubt: hoots and

boos for that maniac who would even mention the subject.

But by 2000, the scene has changed, and the choice is now

quite different. In effect, a drastic code has already been im-

posed by a federal judge: An Independent Review Board ap-

pointed by the court, independent, that is, from the union

power structure and outside its control, has purged the union

of scores of individual crooks and organized racketeers and, to

an important degree, has protected members from retaliation

for criticizing their officials. Court-appointed officers ran the

elections for international officers and guaranteed an honest

count. Court-appointed investigators continue on the alert for

malefactors. This existing enforcement machinery remains free

of control by union officials and independent of union politics.

The choice is no longer an ethical code vs. freewheeling

but between an actual government-imposed monitorship, tried

and effective, on the one hand, or a Hoffa-endorsed plan on

the other. The adoption of the Hoffa plan could be the first step

toward eliminating the tested government monitorship. That

difference between 1981 and 2000 explains why there are no

boos and screams to shout down the Hoffa plan but welcome

tolerance from the union establishment, and explains why Kil-

mury and TDU, the original proponents of an ethical practices

committee, are skeptical.

The controversy revolves around several related issues: Will

Hoffa’s proposed code be adequate even as a statement of good

intentions? Even more important, will it include an effective

enforcement mechanism? In any event, would it be prudent

now to lift the government monitorship?

this, he was correct. It is in-

conceivable that so crass a set

of notions could ever pass muster by Stier and make its way

into any finished public document. But it is revealing of the

frank leanings of its sponsors. Money and power press on their

minds. And, in fact, these proposals were missing from a later

and more elaborate and sophisticated draft. The new draft sim-

ply noted that salaries should be “appropriate” and not high

enough to jeopardize an affiliate’s ability to pay its bills.

The code, then, would leave open such delicate salary ques-

tions. That kind of omission, or flexibility, means that the ac-

tual application of principles elucidated in the codes will de-

pend upon the enforcement mechanism.

In distinguishing right from wrong, the draft is an excellent

guide to good conduct: It is wrong to accept bribes and kick-

backs, the rights of members should be respected, conflicts of

interest should be avoided, there should be fiduciary responsi-

bility, fair elections, toleration of dissent, fair hiring halls, in-

formed and fair contract ratification. All explained in convinc-

ing detail. One can quibble here and there over a formulation.

There are omissions: nothing about the election of stewards and

business agents. Still, if the labor moment, and the Teamsters,

could be induced to follow these moral commandments, the

world would be a better place. But enforcement? There’s the

rub.

Lofty guiding principles are one thing. Enforcement is quite

another. A law which prescribed that justice and harmony

should prevail in the world would be praiseworthy but not

much good without an enforcement mechanism. In the Team-

sters union today enforcement is at least as important as the

continued on page 8

Now, 19 years later, some of those same delegates and

At the AUD conference, Ken Paff, TDU national organizer,

their similars still dominate the union. But how the scene has distributed copies of an early draft memo that had been pre-

changed! Now, James Hoffa, Jr. proposes to establish, not only pared by one subcommittee of the RISE task force (RISE is the

a kind of ethical practices committee, but an elaborate pro- acronym title of the Hoffa program.) In some of its suggestions

gram of conferences and codes aimed to prove that the union for the code, the memo was startling: it proposed that there be

intends to act against organized crime. But this time, TDU, no limits on officers’ pay, that multiple salaries be permitted,

some of its same members or their similars, are skeptical, in- that nepotism remain unrestricted, that no-show jobs, while

sisting that the Hoffa plan is frowned upon, be permissible.

a public relations ploy really “Have we forgotten that this union was sub- Ed Stier, who devised the ba-

intended to get rid of the cur-

sic RISE plan, replied to cdt-

rent government monitorship jected to monitorship precisely because it was ics that this memo was only a

over the union, giving Hoffa

heavily In filtrated by organized crime,,

through draft for submission to

the full RISE task force. In

by murderers, crooks, and extortionists?”

June2000

Union Democracy Review