<<  <  >  >>

Page 29

its extortion statute.  Other states include additional

requirements for the offense.  A handful of states require

malicious intent.96

Thus, whether due to lack of resources, lack of will,

or by statute, millions of citizens can expect no protec-

tion under anti-extortion laws from vandalism, harassment,

kidnapping, threats, and assaults if such offenses are

committed by union militants on strike for what they per-

ceive as better working conditions.  Indeed, the ineffec-

tiveness of state extortion laws as applied in cases of

union violence provides yet another basis upon which to

argue that FUVA is both constitutional and necessary.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment bars states from

"depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law" or "deny[ing] to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Although that provision is enforceable through the courts,

the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility by con-

ferring on unions an exemption from the Hobbs Act.

Nonetheless, the Congress under Section 5 of the 14th

Amendment can "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the

provisions" of Section 1.  And because Congress created

the statutory ambiguity that the Court has seized on, it

is imperative that Congress remove that ambiguity at once.

Absent a congressional remedy, one can anticipate that

the Court will continue to turn a blind eye to victims of

union violence.  Events at the AA Cross Construction Co.

are an unhappy reminder.

In 1974, Cross contracted with the U.S. Army to build

a pumping station near Port Arthur, Texas.  The company

began hiring both union and nonunion workers, which

aroused controversy in Port Arthur, where a large of num-

ber of union workers lived.  On January 15, 1975, a

protest was planned at a meeting of the Executive

Committee of the local Building and Construction Trades

Council.  Two days later, the "protest" commenced as "the

mob swarmed over the construction site, brutally beating

Cross and his employees with iron rods and wooden boards,

overturning and setting fire to the trailer that served as

the construction site office, smashing automobile and truck

windshields, and vandalizing company tools and equipment."97

The violence eventually forced Cross to default on its

contract with the Army.

Cross and  a number of nonunion employees led by Paul

Scott sued the unions under what is commonly known as the

"Ku Klux Klan Act" of 1871.  In language quite similar to