Teamsters Are Slugging It Out in Public for First Time

For decades, the scandal-scarred Teamsters Union has fought off its many enemies in Congress and law-enforcement agencies with little internal dissension, largely because almost all leaders at every level of the union have remained unswervingly loyal during seemingly endless investigations.

Because of this often misplaced loyalty--as well as self-interest and, in some cases, a sense of futility--the honest majority of leaders, from the smallest locals around the country to the highest officials, have done nothing to root out corrupt officers tied to mobsters.

In recent weeks, however, the leaders have furiously turned on one another for the first time in the 89-year history of the remarkably united “Teamster movement,” as they often call their union.

The drama began with the 9-to-8 vote in July by the union’s general executive board naming William J. McCarthy of Boston as president to succeed the late Jackie Presser.

Traditionally, the officers immediately unite around a new president. But they didn’t this time, perhaps because of another unprecedented action: the move by the Justice Department to put the entire 1.4-million-member union under a trusteeship pending “free and fair” election of officers.

McCarthy moved quickly against his internal foes. Several high-ranking leaders and numerous second-echelon officials who opposed his selection were toppled from powerful, well-paid positions.

Other officers who didn’t support him have been demoted. Still others have been slapped with petty changes of responsibility, presumably as warnings to line up behind McCarthy or face more serious punishment.

Several ousted officers are unhesitatingly denouncing McCarthy in public, including two vice presidents--an embittered 50-year veteran of the union, 76-year-old Robert Holmes of Detroit, and Edward Lawson of Vancouver.

Two of McCarthy’s warning shots were fired at Vice Presidents Arnie Weinmeister, head of the Western Conference of Teamsters, and Michael Riley, head of Southern California Teamsters Joint Council 42. Both opposed McCarthy.

He stripped Riley of his vice presidential responsibility for Southern California Teamsters, giving it to another vice president from California, Jack Cox, a McCarthy supporter. Riley retains his job as head of Joint Council 42, however, and remains a vice president. Similar action was taken against Weinmeister.

The most bizarre of McCarthy’s retaliatory moves was his use of an almost forgotten section of the union’s constitution.

He officially accused aging international Vice President Maurice R. Schurr of Philadelphia with, among other things, conducting himself “in such a manner as to bring reproach to this international union.” Schurr was convicted four years ago of the reproachable conduct of accepting a $2,500 payoff from an employer who was trying to avoid unionization, but most Americans were unaware of that fact.

The charge, worded in the archaic language of an earlier era, seems particularly ludicrous since it comes from McCarthy, who himself is accused of having ties with the underworld.

Adding to the absurdity is the fact that McCarthy has been a top officer of the union through the administrations of three previous Teamster presidents who were imprisoned for various crimes. The most notorious of the three was James R. Hoffa, who disappeared mysteriously--a presumed victim of mob violence--after his release from prison.

Neither McCarthy nor any of his associates has ever accused a previous Teamster president of bringing “reproach” to the union. And they never used that handy constitutional provision against any of the hundreds of lesser lights in the union who have been convicted of criminal acts.

Schurr is to be tried by the entire McCarthy-dominated, 18-member general executive board of the union on Oct. 17. If convicted, he can be removed as vice president.

McCarthy may hope that his accusation against Schurr will persuade U.S. Atty. Rudolph W. Giuliani of Manhattan that there is a real reform movement going on inside the union and that, therefore, he should drop the Justice Department suit designed to clean up the union.

The government’s case is set for trial in February, and McCarthy may make other “reform” moves before that.

But reducing the credibility of McCarthy’s move against the reproachable Schurr is the fact that the new president has so far successfully fought off a more far-reaching attempt by his chief opponent to make substantial reforms in the union.

Weldon Mathis, the union’s secretary-treasurer who was defeated by McCarthy, called for a special convention to elect top officers. Mathis suggested convention rules that would increase rank-and-file participation and thus presumably diminish mob influence. He proposed other rules to reduce the power of local officers who are strongly influenced by entrenched national leaders.

Mathis also proposed creation of an ethical practices committee led by non-Teamsters of “unquestioned high character” that would deal with allegedly corrupt leaders or locals. Such a committee would make it easier to oust corrupt officers and more difficult for incumbent officers to single out only opponents like Schurr as “reproachable” and remove them from office.

Mathis also wants to require only a simple membership majority vote to reject a proposed contract with a company instead of the two-thirds majority now needed. That is one reform McCarthy has hinted he might accept.

While it isn’t possible to clearly tell the good guys from the bad ones in this fascinating power struggle, the advantage goes to Mathis, who has never been linked to mobsters. In contrast, McCarthy is said to be closely associated with Joseph Trerotola, who the government says is closely linked to New York crime families.

The Justice Department attempt to put an entire union under a government-imposed trusteeship is dangerous in a free society.

But if the government’s preliminary legal steps shake honest Teamsters out of their complacency and make loyalty less important than ending mob influence in the union, something very good might come out of Giuliani’s legal maneuvers--if the courts stop the government from actually taking over the union.

UAW Leaders May Soon Resolve Dispute

Dissension is rather common in the United Auto Workers, among the most democratic unions in the country. One of the most bitter factional rivalries involved leaders of the UAW 645 at the General Motors Van Nuys plant, but happily that one may be resolved soon.

It involves Peter Beltran, the local’s shop chairman, who gained some national attention by vehemently opposing an exciting, useful labor-management cooperative system that gives employees a decision-making role on their jobs. He maintained that such cooperation is nothing but a sellout of workers.

Despite the opposition of Beltran and others, UAW regional director Bruce Lee and his supporters prevailed, and the cooperative concept is now used at Van Nuys.

Last May, during that fight, Beltran was fired for allegedly lying about 38 days of unexcused absences. Also fired was Beltran’s ally, Michael Velasquez, local vice president, who was accused of lying in a letter to the company claiming that Beltran was properly engaged in union business during his absences.

Both men filed grievances, saying that they were unfairly dismissed because of their opposition to the UAW-GM cooperative plan. But now Beltran has told Lee that he wants to drop his fight for reinstatement and hopes to persuade the company to give him retirement with full benefits--something Beltran won’t get if he pursues and loses his case, even though he is a 30-year GM veteran.

Despite their sharp differences, Lee agreed and is trying to get Beltran his full retirement benefits. The company is reluctant to go along because Velasquez is continuing to fight for his own reinstatement.

Management’s case against Velasquez would be weakened if it, in effect, absolves Beltran and does not drop the charges against Velasquez. While the company’s charges against the two men may be valid, and their opposition to cooperation doesn’t make much sense, their years of service to the company and union entitles them to the kind of understanding offered by the UAW’s regional director.