<<  <  >  >>

Page 25

pursuit of "legitimate" union goals was exempt.  FUVA

retains an exemption for some conduct, but makes clear

which conduct is exempt and which is not.

For instance, FUVA exempts "minor bodily injury or

minor damage to property" from prosecution for extortion.

It is not difficult to distinguish between an occasional

bloodied nose or a single broken window and the misconduct

described in this paper.  International Paper suffered

$750,000 in damage to its Androscoggin, Maine, plant due

to sabotage by local paperworker unionists.  Boise Cascade

in International Falls, Minnesota, lost $1.3 million in a

riot by ironworker union militants.  Ravenswood Aluminum,

which suffered more than 2,500 acts of violence, would not

reveal their financial damages.

Since 1975, at least 181 Americans have died as a

result of union violence, according to the NILRR's data

file--hardly the "minor bodily injury" exempted under FUVA.

There have also been more than 5,600 assaults, kidnap-

pings, and threats--almost all committed by striking union

militants.

FUVA also exempts union violence "not part of a pat-

tern of violent conduct or of coordinated violent activi-

ty."  The violence cited here can hardly be dismissed as

spontaneous or uncoordinated.  Newsstands were targeted in

the Daily News strike only after attacks on delivery

trucks failed to stop circulation.  In the Detroit News

strike, Newspaper Guild officials announced their intention

to follow company trucks to stop distribution of the

paper.  In the Boise Cascade riot, the union militants who

attacked the nonunion camp were bused to the site.  Time

and time again, one sees nonstriking workers stalked, kid-

napped, threatened at their homes and on the telephone,

and sometimes firebombed or shot at.  Such actions cannot

be characterized as lacking in forethought.

Even with its exceptions--more important for what they

do not exempt than for what they do--FUVA would finally

enable federal prosecutors to try union militants and

officials for extortionate behavior.  Opponents of FUVA

have objected to that authorization.

Testifying against FUVA last year, labor law professor

Michael Gottesman argued that the "intentional commission

of a crime against person or property is a crime in every

state. . . . Not a single wrong would be made a federal

crime by S. 230 that is not now a state or local crime

everywhere today."86   The Georgetown professor's objection

might carry more weight if any evidence could be produced