Do Public Service Unions Share the Obligations of Their Members?

On Sunday, the New York <i>Times</i> ran <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/nyregion/13homes.html&quot; target="”_blank”">an
article based on a long-term investigation</a> of group homes for the
developmentally disabled in New York state. It found that "in hundreds
of cases reviewed by The Times, employees who sexually abused, beat or
taunted residents were rarely fired, even after repeated offenses and,
in many cases, were simply transferred to other group homes run by the
state." It sounds as if officials were following the Catholic Church's
handling of its abuse cases.<br>
<br>
How did this happen? Although the state agencies in charge did very
little investigating and showed very little transparency, the unions
were also major contributors to the problem. The question I want to
consider here is, Do public service unions share the obligations of
their members? Are they parties to government ethics, or do they
somehow stand outside of it?<br>
<br>

In this situation, the union contested almost every abuse charge filed
against its members, leading to compromises that
almost never including firing or even suspension. That is why so many
employees were simply moved to another group home.<br>
<br>
An official likens
the union's role to that of a public defender, and blames state law for
giving the union "an absolute duty to represent" union members charged
with abuse. And, apparently, to represent them zealously.<br>
<br>
Can a public service union have an absolute duty? Public servants
can't, because public servants have a duty to the public interest. The
public interest here is to prevent any abusing government employee from
being in a position to abuse others. When such an employee has misused
his position, as in these cases, that employee's rights are not the
same as in a regular personnel matter. Certainly the union may make
sure all the facts are considered, but when it comes to resolving the
matter, I believe that they should not demand that the employee be
moved to a job where the same abuse can occur.<br>
<br>
I think that public service unions share their members' duty to serve
the public interest. Therefore, they should balance their duty to
defend government employees against this duty to serve the public
interest. They should recognize their members' duties when
they are defending their members. They cannot ask for anything their
members cannot ask for.<br>
<br>
The union official said, “When we know the person is guilty, we try to
convince the person to get out of it by resigning. But if the person
decides to go forward, we have to do our best job.” Its best job for
whom? Since these are not criminal proceedings, there is no requirement
to
zealously defend the accused. Perhaps the union does not realize this.
Many lawyers do not, so I would assume that this group includes the
union's lawyers (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/666&quot; target="”_blank”">my blog post on government attorneys and zealousness</a>). Someone must tell them they have no such obligation.<br>
<br>
The union's obligations to the public are even stronger in
developmental disability matters, because most of the victims are not
in a position to defend themselves, and many of them do not have
families actively involved in their lives. Without a prosecutor, there
is only the agency and the union to protect the disabled.<br>
<br>
The union also has a problem with transparency. The union said "it was
against their policy to talk publicly about personnel matters." It is
not a personnel matter that the union is demanding that its members be
moved to a place where they can abuse other vulnerable people. The
union should change its rules and talk publicly about these matters
without getting into the details of each employee's conduct.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---