<<  <  >  >>

Page 28

authorities alone the task of punishing serious, extortion-

ate violence" by union officials in the pursuit of "legit-

imate" bargaining goals.93

Still, as Gottesman said, all 50 states have laws

against vandalism, threats, assaults, and other kinds of

extortionate activity.  Is it necessary to amend federal

law where state laws already apply?

Is FUVA Necessary?

The answer, in short, is a resounding "yes." Evidence

from the NILRR data file indicates that there are few

arrests and convictions relative to the number of violent

incidents.  From the police chief in Minnesota who ques-

tioned his ability to protect local residents, to the

Pennsylvania chief who publicly blamed the use of replace-

ment workers for the violence, it is clear that local law

enforcement authorities are frequently overwhelmed or

politically immobilized.  Although each state has a statu-

tory extortion offense, ultimately they all are subject to

a common frailty: political reality.

Unions are effective political machines.  In urban

areas, they may be the most effective political organiza-

tions, as demonstrated in New York by the Daily News

strike.  But union influence is not limited to urban

areas.  The UMW strikes in West Virginia and Kentucky con-

firmed that a statute is meaningless where it is ignored

by police, prosecutors, and the courts.  Indeed, when gun

battles broke out during the 1981 UMW strike, Kentucky

Governor John Y. Brown--sworn to uphold the law--offered

this incredible explanation of his strict neutrality:

"We're not going to camp on one side or the other."94

Political influence, though, is not the only explana-

tion for state and local inaction.  A large number of

states base their extortion statute on provisions of the

Model Penal Code (MPC), which creates an exclusive list of

threats that are considered extortion.95   Yet, the MPC

grants union officials the same exemptions from prosecution

as the U.S. Supreme Court's Enmons ruling.  For instance,

the MPC applies to strike violence only "if the property

is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group

in whose interest the person making the threat or sugges-

tion purports to act."  Recalling the decision in Enmons--

i.e., that violence in pursuit of "legitimate" union

objectives is exempt from federal prosecution--the MPC

establishes "compensation for property or lawful services"

as "a defense to the prosecution" of union violence under