A Uniformed Union Fiefdom in NYC
I've written several posts about individuals who have created
fiefdoms (<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/bullying-head-local-fiefdom" target="”_blank”">a
D.A</a>., <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/classic-fiefdom-and-problem-long-term…; target="”_blank”">a
housing authority director</a>, a <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/city-pension-board-attorneys-fiefdom&…; target="”_blank”">city
pension board attorney</a>, the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/need-ethics-oversight-cogs" target="”_blank”">director
of a council of local governments</a>, and the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/classic-example-closed-fiefdom" target="”_blank”">CEO
of a state university foundation</a>), but none of them were union
leaders. A large investigative <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/nyregion/at-rikers-a-roadblock-to-ref…; target="”_blank”">piece
in the New York <i>Times</i> today</a> provides an excellent description
of the fiefdom of the head of New York City's correction officers
union.<br>
<br>
Uniformed unions wield a disproportionate power in most local
governments. One reason is that their support is often considered
necessary to win an election. This gives them a great deal of
leverage with elected officials. For one thing, mayors and local
legislators rarely criticize the unions in public. For example, when
in November, the mayor called for "a culture change" in the city's
violent jail, he criticized the corrections department, not the
union. In fact, in October, the mayor publicly praised the union
president.<br>
<br>
The <i>Times</i> investigation shows how many other ways the union
president wields his power. The principal way is through
intimidation. He allegedly walked into the office of the
department's lead investigator and threatened her. And then she was
replaced . . . with a childhood friend of the union president, whose
brother had been on the union's executive board. A
culture of violence against prisoners can derive from a culture of fear and
cronyism in a fiefdom.<br>
<br>
A former head of the corrections department said of the union
president, “I came to think that my wardens believed Norman was more
important to their career than I was.” <br>
<br>
Everyone seems to believe this, and all because a union president,
as this one is quoted as saying, responds to labor management issues
to protect the rights of union members.
That is, the rights of individual members override any other
consideration, including harm to prisoners, competent management,
and a culture of fear and cronyism.<br>
<br>
The union president doesn't just wield power in the city. He also
wields power in the state, partly through large campaign
contributions to state legislators. This year, he helped craft a
bill that would move the jurisdiction of the jail's criminal cases
from the Bronx district attorney’s office to the one in Queens. It
passed easily. The union president had accused the Bronx D.A. of
being too aggressive with union members, while going too easy on
inmate violence. So he effectively got rid of the D.A., too.<br>
<br>
As the article points out, loyalty is an important part of the union
president's power. He spends a lot of his time paying attention to
everything from new recruits to those accused of misconduct. In
return he gets unquestioning loyalty, so that the corrections
officers are aligned behind him, and everyone knows it.<br>
<br>
Sometimes he
even employs pranks to show his power and arrogance. For example,
one day, when an inmate was supposed to testify in court against two
corrections officers, the union president insisted that all the
buses were unsafe and would not let any of them leave the jail, even
those taking inmates to a hospital for treatment.<br>
<br>
The union president even called a press conference to attack the
mayor's new appointee as head of corrections, before the
appointee had started work. The criticism appears to have gone down
along with the killing of promised reforms.<br>
<br>
Two months ago, a judge recommended that five officers and a captain
be terminated for brutally beating an inmate and then lying about
it. The head of corrections has yet to decide what to do. It's not a
position anyone would want to be in. It's hard to live in someone
else's fiefdom, especially when you're nominally in charge.<br>
<br>
It's hard to get rid of this sort of fiefdom, because the union
president, who is accountable only to his members, is at least
apparently putting their personal, short-term interests ahead of the
interest of the corrections department and the public interest.
Therefore, one must convince union members to put the public
interest in an orderly, less violent, more accountable prison ahead
of what they are told is their personal interest. This would
require a unique sort of revolution or an incredible alternative
union leader.<br>
<br>
A mayor or council with a great deal of moral courage could start
portraying the problem not as a corrections department problem but,
at least in part, as a union problem.<br>
<br>
A study of government union fiefdoms, ethical misconduct, and the
disproportionate power of uniformed unions would be
valuable, as well.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---