SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIA TlON

6o~b~ / W\\S~

't. iF.-]

o

FIRinG Line

Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additionalreprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rightsreserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives,Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010

The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the makingof photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes arequest for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies)for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement.Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-useof this material.

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

SECA PRESENTS ®

FIRinG Line

The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern EducationalCommunications Association, 928 Woodrow St., p. O. Box 5966, Columbia, S.C., 29205, andis transmitted through the facilities of the Public Broadcasting Service. Production of theseprograms is made possible through a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.FIRING LINE can be seen and heard each week through public television and radio stationsthroughout the country. Check your local newspapers for channel and time in your area.

Host:

Guest:

Subject:

Student Participants:

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY/JR.

VICTOR H. GOTBAUM, Executive Director,District Council 37, AFLMALCOLM WI LSON, Lieutenant Governor,State of New York

"Strike--In Defiance of the Law?"

Laura Kramer, Barnard CollegeFred Lowell, Columbia UniversityGovernor Watt, Columbia University

All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole without written permission is prohibited.Quotation in part of 100 words or less is permitted with appropriate credit shown.

FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL

This is a transcript of the FIR ING LIN E proqram taped at Lewron Studios, New York City,and telecast on PBS on Wednesday, June 16,1971.

© 1971 SECA Cover Artwork - Ronald G. ChapieskySOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

© Board of Trustees of the land Stanford Jr. University.

MR. BUCKLEY:Tendays ago in NewYorkCity,quite suddenly after the Memorial Dayweekend, New Yorkers found that most ofthe bridges coming into the city were closed,that sewage facilities were clogged with theresult that over the next days a billiongallons of raw sewage were pumped intoadjacent waters and beach areas; incineratorsstopped working; food destined forschoolchildren's lunches was interdicted, andtotal chaos threatened.

The order to strike had been given byMr. Victor Gotbaum, Executive Director ofDistrict Council 37, American Federation ofState, County and Municipal Employees ofthe AF L-CIO, a graduate of BrooklynCollege with an advanced degree fromColumbia University. The issue was this: Mr.Gotbaum's union, in negotiating with theCity of New York, had agreed on a pensionplan; but under the law, pension plans needto be approved by the State Legislature; andsaid Legislature, dubbing the arrangementexorbitant, inflationary and an invitation tofiscal disaster, refused to authorize the plan.

The Legislature is dominated byRepublican officials, senior among whom isLieutenant Governor Malcolm Wilson, alawyer, a graduate of Fordham, a survivor ofthe Normandy landing, who served twentyyears in the Assembly before being electedLieutenant Governor in 1958 as runningmate to Nelson Rockefeller. Both gentlemenhave been reelected ever after. (Laughterfrom audience)

In 1965, there were thirty-five illegalstrikes by public employees. Three yearslater the figure rose to two hundred andeighty-five. There are any number of lawssaying you can't do it; increasingly, the lawsare a dead letter. And the instant questionarises: Why is an interview with a man whocalled an illegal strike, that crippled thelargest city in the United States, being heldin a television studio rather than in jail?

I should like to begin by asking Mr.Gotbaum, do you believe that other peopleshould obey the law?

MR. GOTBAUM: A very difficult question. Ithink if we don't obey the law, we ought tobe punished under the law; and if theprinciple is great enough, then you fight forthat principle -- whether it's blacks forcing aconfr,ontation in Jim Crow South, orwhether it's Vic Gotbaum forcing aconfrontation in New York City. I never askfor clemency under the law, Mr. Buckley; Iwill not ask for it. Whatever the punishmentmay be, I believe the principle we followed

© Board of Trustees of the eland Stanford Jr. University.

is big enough to accept the punishment. Ibroke the law.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, do you, uh -- do you,uh, believe that that right extends, forinstance, to, uh, Sirhan Sirhan .- and he'sobviously prepared to pay the penalty forkilling Bobby Kennedy; does that make itokay for him to have done so?

MR. GOTBAUM: We didn't talk of the right,and I didn't .. I didn't mention it as a right. Italked of it in terms of man's principle.Sirhan Sirhan made a studied and a -- adecision in terms of his life, and he'sprobably suffering the penalty for it -­something we regret. I'm sure Vic Gotbaum,with the approval of tens of thousands ofmembers, made a decision, too. You can'tmake the regret for him; he has to do it forhimself -- and he lives with it, and he abidesby it. I, Uh -- I feel we did it for a very justprinciple. I would do it again. I felt we hadto dramatize the fact that we could not get alegitimate vote on a contractual relationship-- sort of a slap to the entire city of NewYork.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, now, you would havedramatized the fact even more flamboyantlyif you had, let's say, allowed the cars to dropinto the river instead of keeping them fromreaching the river, wouldn't you?

MR. GOTBAUM. Ummmhh.

MR. BUCKLEY: What -- what kept youfrom doing that?

MR. GOTBAUM: What kept us from doingthat is, there is power, and there's powerplus one.

MR. BUCKLEY: Mmm hmm.

MR. GOTBAUM: Uh, why did we -- youknow, why did we elim· -- do the sewagething on the second day and not the firstday? Why would we not let it go beyondforty-eight hours? There are certainlimitations on power. Why didn't we walkoff the reservoirs, for example, Mr. Buckley?We control the reservoirs and all the waterinput -- including Yonkers, your hometown,uh, Lieutenant Governor. Why didn't we dotnat? Because we wanted to dramatize asbest we could, without necessarily reachingthe nth degree; so that the sewage wenttwenty-four hours. By the way, the sewageplant, despite the consternation of all those

fish, had been shut down for twenty-fourhours before -- legitimately or legally -- sothat, while it looked very ugly, we knewwhat the danger point was.

What stopped us? What stops us is;What is power, what is power plus one, andwhat is your level of responsibility in termsof your gains? We wanted to dramatize; wesought a goal; we believe we attained thegoal.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, you convulsed a cityof eight million people, and you considerthat, --X, not plus one, but just more or less,uh, something that; roughly speaking, washarmonious with what it was that youintended to achieve. Is that right?

MR. GOTBAUM: No, I felt that it was aterrible turmoil. I think it's a city that'sgoing through even more disgraceful turmoil.I think it's a city that's dying because ofwhat Malcolm Wilson and the Republicansare doing in the State Legislature. I think it'sa city that's going through day-in andday-out convulsions. It's a city that can'tteach its kids. It's a city that can't service itspoor. It's a city where a kid has to eat oneighty-eight cents a day. So these are thethings that I find disturbing.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, Governor Wilson,why don't you spend more money, insteadof being so hardhearted over there and -- andtrying to ruin Mr. Gotbaum's city?

MR. WI LSON: Well, I think it's importantfor all of us to recognize and,unfortunately, too few people recognize -­the fact that government has nothing to giveexcept what it first takes from its taxpayersin the form of direct taxes or in the form ofbonds. Therefore, in order to raise revenues,we have to impose taxes. Our state budgetthis year provides not alone for the needs ofthe state, which were curtailed actually by$700,000,000 in budget cuts made by theLegislature, but in a la -- very large way, forthe local governments, which need help,including New York City.

It is just impossible for the city ofNew York, within its own resources -- or theresources of its own taxpayers, moreproperly -- to provide for the services whichthe people require. This is a principle whichwe have long adhered to, recognized, in stategovernment. This year, for example, in ourbudget, uh, about $2,100,000,000 is, uh,direct aid to the city of New York for

2

general pu rposes, for education and for avariety of specialized services.

MR. BUCKLEY: How much taxes do youtake from New York?

MR. WILSON: It's hard to ascertain,actually, how much of the state's revenuescome from the city. For example, manylarge corporate employers, which have plantsand employees and children to educate invarious parts of the state, file their returnsfrom New York City. The best, uh, estimatewe can make is that in the current year thestate will receive about 43 percent of itstotal revenues from taxpayers within thecity of New York.

MR. BUCKLEY: And how much will youremit?

MR. WI LSON: About 45 percent of the aidwhich the state pays to local governmentsgoes to the city of New York.

MR. BUCKLEY: Mm hmm. So you're abouteven.

MR. GOTBAUM: NO ... no...

MR. WI LSO N: There's a -- there is moregoing back to the city than the percentagewhich is received by the state --

MR. BUCKLEY: By--

MR. WILSON: -- from sources within thecity.

MR. GOTBAUM: Uh, is that in absolute--

MR. WI LSON: That is -- that is--

MR. GOTBAUM: absolute sums,Governor? In other words, in absolutemoney? You're using percentage figures nowin terms of the entire state. In absolutemoney, am I not correct in saying that youreceive more money from the city than youreturn to the city in a year.

MR. WILSON: Well, of course -- of course,Victor, that's true. And the state alsoreceives more money from Yonkers, andfrom Big Flats up in Steuben County, than itreturns either to Yonkers or to Big Flats.That's because the state performs servicesfor its citizens. Uh, our budget is composedof three major parts. One is state purposes-­the operation of our state agencies, the

© Board of Trustees of the

operation of our mental hygiene institutionsand correctional institutions, the operationsof the courts and the Legislature -- all of theservices which the state provides directly forits citizens.

A second part is capital construction.That's self-explanatory by its title.

The ttl ird part, wh ich is by far thelargest part of the state budget, is the localassistance section. Now, in the localassistance portion of our budget, New YorkCity, with its 8,000,000 people, receives 45percent of the money. The othercommunities in the state -- and we do have62 cities and 62 counties and 953 towns and530 villages, and in those areas there live, bythe most recent census, about 10,000,000people -- get the balance of the money.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, to rescue thediscussion from the economic aspect of this-- because I think that most people are reallyinterested in the -- in the theoreticalresponsibilities of the -- of a governmentwhen an illegal strike is declared. Let's agreeto -- to suspend the economic argument,since, certainly I'm not proficient, either indescribing it or in evaluating. But, I wouldlike to know, what do you people in Albanypropose to do to make things like illegalstrikes slightly more, slightly more, uh -- aslightly more hazardous activity that it tendsto have been in the last few years?

MR. WI LSON: Well, as you pointed out atthe opening of the program, uh, the fulldrama of, what a strike of public employeescan mean to innocent victims, was revealedwhen the particular employees to whom youmade reference, uh, engaged in a workstoppage right at the end of the legislativesession. There will not be a regular session ofthe Legislature until January of next year.The Governor, of course, can convene theLegislature at any time for a specificpurpose.

What the reaction of the Legislaturewill be, I don't know. I strongly suspect thathad the Legislature been in session theremight have been, uh, an -- perhaps anoverreaction to the events in New York City.The fact of the matter is, we have in NewYork State what is known as the TaylorLaw.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yeah.

MR. WI LSON: It gets its name from GeorgeTaylor, who is Professor of Labor Relationsat the Fordham School of Finance, who

land Stanford Jr. University. 3

chaired a committee of labor experts -- madea recommendation in 1966, which wasfollowed in the main by the Legislature of1977 (sic) to confer on employees the rightto organize and to negotiate collectively -­not to bargain collectively -- we do not havethe right to bargain collectively in the publicemploy -- we have the right, and it'sconferred and in our statute now, to -- toorganize for the purpose of collectivenegotiation and to choose their ownrepresentatives, to establ ish grievanceprocedu res -- and the Law clearly restatesthe basic principle that there is no right tostrike against the government, that that -­that sanction does not ex ist, in a publicemployee.

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, if you'd been in theLegislature, would you have voted -- votedfor that law, Mr. Gotbaum?

MR. GOTBAUM: No, I would not.I -- I'm -- I -- I -- I'm still confused by

one thing. I regard myself as having someexpertise in -- in labor·management relationsin a public service. Why this emphasis, andhow do you define the difference, uh,Governor, between collective negotiationsand collective bargaining? Oh, one otherpoint I'd like to make -.

MR. BUCKLEY: Uh, well, that -- let's settlethat one --

MR. WILSON: Yes. All right.

MR. BUCKLEY: -- and then you can get theother one in.

MR. WILSON: Let's -- let's take it one byone.

MR. GOTBAUM: (Laughing) Okay.

MR. WILSON: Well--

MR. GOTBAUM: I was just--

MR. WI LSON: -- uh, I make the distinction,which was made, in the Taylor report,between collective negotiations andcollective bargaining, in that the ultimatesanction the ultimate sanction innegotiations between an employer andemployees in the private sector is the ri- -- is-- is the strike -- the right to strike. In ourdemocratic society, in the private sector, Iwill say as loudly and as long as anyone thatthere is a right to strike in the private sector.

MR. WILSON: Private .. private industry,the employer can move his plant someplaceelse, or can go out of business. Governmentcan't go out of business. The ones who areaffected adversely by a strike, to the extentthere is an adverse effect in a private sector,are the employer and its stockholders on theone hand, and the employees on the other,who are not receiving pay during the periodof the dispute. The customer has a choice.The customer, if General Motors is on strike,doesn't have to buy a General Motors car, hecan buy a car of another manufacturer if hewishes.

MR. WILSON: Yes?

MR. BUCKLEY: Nor can a government goout of business.

MR. WILSON: Yeah, but Victor, uh, thepoint of the matter is, uh, one cannot legallywithhold his labor if he is in the publicemploy, except by -- by quitting the job.Everyone has a right to quit his job. Thereare basic differences between the privatesector and the public sector when it comesto negotiations with their emp loyees. In theprivate sector, there are tools available to theemployer. In the private sector theemployer, for example, can -- can lock outhis employees. That's permitted.Government can't lock out its employeeseven if it were inclined to do so, because theservices they render are vital to thewell-being of the people, who are the onesserved by government employees.

MR. BUCKLEY: Nor can a government goout of business.

MR. WI LSON: Pardon me?

MR. GOTBAUM: What I'm trying to say,though, is that to the man who is on the job,if he feels exploited, it's difficult for him todefine the difference between John Lindsayor .- or John F. Kennedy as a boss. This isthe point that I make. If he feel's he'sexploited, he's going to withold his labor.And what I -- when I state to people -- Iwasn't using Nikita Kruschchev as aninvidious comparison. The theconcentration camps of the Soviet Unionand of Turkey under the Menderes regimewhere I worked for a while are filled withworkers who struck against the government.

MR. GOTBAUM: But what I -- what I'mtrying to say, though, uh, Malcolm, if I will

5

MR. GOTBAUM: (Laughing) We'll get awayfrom the, uh, from the economics of it.

MR. GOTBAUM: Okay. I, uh -- we didn't.You contradict them, but I'll go along withit. The point that I'm making, though .. we'llget away from the economics, if this is whatyou want -- it's your show -- I'm just--

MR. GOTBAUM: Let me match ..

MR. WI LSON: Okay.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- my vice with yourvirtue. Since you're so virtuous, let meimagine -- okay? And let me match the vicewith your virtue in this sense -- and that is,in terms of the worker, the man on the job,whose livelihood is made in giving a publicservice. Is--

MR. BUCKLEY: You know: a strike.(laughter from audience)

MR. WILSON: Uh, that's the problem,Victor, is you are confusing the person withthe office. Oon't -- don't, uh, be guilty ofthat vice. Uh, don't confuse the person withthe office. The office is an office ingovernment, and it is the function of theperson in that office to perform a govern -­perform the duties and responsibilities of hisoffice.

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, we -- we -- we're notgonna get into the economic merits of the-­of this--

MR. GOTBAUM: I just -- well, I just -- I justwant to get one point -- I just want to getone point, uh -- and, uh -- and I'll be leavingout the back way after. The point that Imake is, they are also bosses -- they are chiefadministrators, and they are bosses. Andthey can be bad bosses or good bosses, butthis is what they are. And in terms of myown union, where I am an administrator, Imight not want my guys to strike either,because, after all, it's a very impudent thing

MR. WILSON: Uh, could I -- (several wordsindistinct amidst the overlapping laughterand confusion) -- I have to ask a question.

MR. BUCKLEY: I'm glad that you lookedmischievous when you said that. (Laughterfrom audience)

MR. GOTBAUM: -- because I regard thepublic figure, the administrator. FOR, Imight vote for him as President. I might votefor John Lindsay as Mayor. MR. WI LSON: Yeah, can I ..

© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

MR. BUCKLEY: -- to the fact thatKruschchev also believed two and two equalsfour?

MR. GOTBAUM: Because the--

MR. GOTBAUM: Because I regard it as anauthoritarian principle from where I sit.That's why two and two -- two -- two --

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay.

MR. BUCKLEY: Because if I say .. if I saythat Coolidge and Roosevelt believe in twoand two equals four, why does it contributeto --

MR. WI LSON: If I don't think they~-

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, go ahead -- go aheadand say that FOR's authoritarian.

MR. GOTBAUM: Because also BenitoMussolini --

MR. GOTBAUM: -- two and two _. Oh yes,in this area I regard it as that, you see--

MR. BUCKLEY: The what?

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay, let's ask you,Governor, what would you do if,Consolidated Edison went out on strike and,uh, the -- the power .. What, in fact, wouldyou do?

MR. GOTBAUM: Oh, no. Also NikitaKruschchev. They don't allow it in theSoviet Union, sir.

MR. WI LSON: I think its very important todraw the distinction between the right tostrike -- and the right to exercisethat right -- whether there are constraintswhether there are valid constraints on thatright --

MR. BUCKLEY: Mm hmmm.

MR. WI LSON: -- the exercise of a right. Istand four-square for the proposition thatthere is no right to strike against the publicat any time for any reason, that there is theright --

MR. BUCKLEY: The proposition on whichCoolidge and FOR agreed.

4

MR. WILSON: The only difference,basically, is the absence of the sanction --

MR. GOTBAUM: -- I would've thought -- ofcourse --

MR. GOTBAUM: No. No. No. I do. I doaccept it, in fact. This is ..

MR. WILSON: _ you didn't accept myexplanation.

MR. BUCKLEY: (To Gotbaum) Okay?

MR. WILSON: -- in the public employ,which is present in a private employ.

MR. GOTBAUM: What I would like to donow -- with you, if you will help me out onthis -- you talked about the ceasing ofservices. and the difficulty there. IfConsolidated Edison went out on strike andthe city went dark, that would be a ceasingof services, wouldn't it? If the food drivers-­if the teamsters who drove food into the cityof New York stopped driving food in, itwould be in the private sector, but thatwould be a ceasing of service of deliveringfood.

MR. GOTBAUM: I do accept -- I do acceptthe -- the explanation.

MR. GOTBAUM: No, because you haven't-­you haven't defined the difference betweencollective negotiations and collectiyebargaining. What you defined is a differencein terms of the right to strike in the publicand the private area. And I think this reallygets at the heart of it, Governor, and onewhere I would've thought--

MR. GOTBAUM: Well, this is -- this is why I

But in the public sector, because of thenature of our government, our representativedemocracy, because of the kinds of serviceswhich are performed by government,because of the very essential natu re ofgovernment itself, the right to strike doesnot exist, and there is not that sanction, and,therefore, we refer to collective negotiationsin the public employ rather than collectivebargaining.

MR. WILSON: Yeah.

MR. WILSON: Oh, I explained .. perhapsyou didn't --

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, what about a Con Edsituation, Mr. Gotbaum?MR. WI LSON: Now, I -- we started toanswer that. I say that there is a rifjht in theprivate sector -. and Con Edison, althoughit's a regulated public utility, is in the privatesector; it is owned by stockholders -- there isa right to strike. But, I believe it isappropriate to have some restraints on theright to strike in those organizations,business organ izations, wh ich serve a largepubIic interest -.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, what restraints--

MR. WI LSON: -- and who have a -. have amonopoly in the field.

MR. BUCKLEY: What restraints are there inthese -.

MR. WI LSON: Well, there are restraints -­cooling-off periods··

MR. BUCKLEY: Yeah.

MR. WILSON: .- such restraints as areprovided, for example, by the -- by theTaft-Hartley Law.

MR. BUCKLEY: What happens at the end ofthe cooling-off period?

MR. WILSON: The ultimate, the end of thecooling-off -.

MR. BUCKLEY: Do you have to, like, seizeand operate the industry?

MR. WI LSON: Well, there is always thatright, of course, and --

MR. BUCKLEY: And would you exercise it?Presumably, you would.

MR. WI LSON: Well, obviously, uh, thatwould be the, uh, one of the final resorts ofgovernment, if it became necessary.

MR. BUCKLEY: Right. In other words, youcan't .-

MR. WI L.:SON: I would -- I would think thatit wou Id not be necessary.

MR. BUCKLEY: No, but you're saying thatyou believe four·square in the right to strikein the private sector.

MR. WILSON: I do. And I, uh--

MR. BUCKLEY: But in such situations asCon Ed, you, as Lieutenant Governor of theState of New York, would affirm any moveby the Legislature to take over and operateany critical enterprise?

MR_ WI LSON: If it were necessary to have aLegislative enactment, but the fact of thematter is .-

Thankfully, the law long agoanticipated the -- the very possibilities.

MR. BUCKLEY: For sanctions.

MR. WILSON: There are existing statuteswhich permit the Governor to take whateversteps are appropriate.

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay. Do you approve ofthose, Mr. Gotbaum?

MR. GOTBAUM: I -- I neither approve nordisapprove.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well··

MR. GOTBAUM: I -- I want to talk, uh --

MR. BUCKLEY: Take some time and thinkabout it.

MR. GOTBAUM: I'm talking philosophic- -­(Laughs)

(General laughter)

MR. GOTBAUM: If I -- if I do that, I .- if Ido that-·

MR. BUCKLEY: Do you or do you notapprove of New York State laws that allowNew York State to take over Con Ed so thatwe can have electricity, in the event thatthere should be a dispute between theemployees and the employers of Con Ed?

MR. GOTBAUM: I -- I do not approve, no.

MR.BUCKLEY:Youdonotl

MR. GOTBAUM: No.

MR. BUCKLEY: Therefore, you think thatit would be all right to simply turn off thepower? In an event of that kind, how dopeople, say, get emergency operations inhospitals? You --

MR. GOTBAUM: Yeah, well, this -- this isthe interesting aspect-·

MR. BUCKLEY: Or do you approve ofemergency hospital operations?

MR. GOTBAUM: I approve of emergencyoperations in hospitals, yes. I don't approveof --

MR. BUCKLEY: The answer is that youreally don't understand the consequences ofwhat you approve of, do you?

MR. GOTBAUM: Oh, yes. I -- I . the, uh -­the answer is, you're not allowing me to -­(Laughs) -- to -. to make my point. If youwould do that, I'd be delighted.

MR. BUCKLEY: Sure.

MR. GOTBAUM: Let me make my point.Malcolm Wilson is quite correct when hetalks about the right to strike in -- in privateindustry, and there is a limiting factor uponthis power, so that when ConsolidatedEdison went out on strike, they allowed forrepairs, if you recall, of their owninstallations so there wou Id not be thebreakdown. When we had a hospital strikeon some time ago, we took care ofemergency needs.

MR. BUCKLEY: Suppose you hadn't?

MR. GOTBAUM: If we hadn't --

MR. BUCKLEY: Then--

MR. GOTBAUM: Now -- now I think you'vehit the key point. Then -- society will be -­uh -- there's no question about it. You will,for example -- I .- I don't deny this. I'mspeaking --

MR. BUCKLEY: How are you, as a practicalmatter, Mr. Gotbaum -. how are you, as apractical matter, in a position to evaluate theeffect of a strike of this nature on eachindivual? For instance, suppose among theseveral million people who were delayed afew days ago from coming into New York,suppose there are among those severalmillion people, people whose rendezvous inNew York were the climactic moment oftheir lives, which you interrupted. Now, howare you in a position -- uh, maybe it was awedding. Maybe it was a graduationceremony. Maybe--

MR. GOTBAUM: You realize how manytragedies I stopped? (Laughter fromaudience)

MR. BUCKLEY: Or .- or maybe it was aconsultation with a doctor, which, because itwas delayed, might have resulted inpermanent, uh, injury or death. Now, howare you in a position, if you take -- if youtake drastic action, individually to evaluatewhether you interrupt your own damage.

MR. GOTBAUM: You're absolutely right. I.- there's no argument to that, and you'reabsolutely correct, and what you have to dois live with -- you live with or die with thesolution that you seek in terms of the poweryou use, so that there were things we couldregulate and things we couldn't regulate. Wedidn't touch the hospitals, nor did we walkoff the water reservoirs, nor did we leave thesewage out the first day. But you're correct.Between that, there is slip between cup andlip. I was infuriated when some of the motorvehicle operator guys walked off on theirown from delivering runs to prove theirmilitancy, so we got them back on as soon aswe could. There was never an order from theunion. This infuriated me.

But you're quite right. When youinvolve yourself .- can I use the wordeconomic warfare if I attach it to that? -.when you use -- when you use economicwarfare, you don't have that muchsensitivity of level. When I left the StateCapitol on Saturday morning because I knewthe Governor absolutely would not considerthe bill, I spent forty-eight hours to try tomake certain of the things you mention. Butyou're quite correct; in economic warfareyou can't be that certain, and then you haveto live with it, as you do in Con Ed.

MR. BUCKLEY: Like bombing in Vietnam.

MR. WILSON: Well, the base of the trouble,you see, is your failure to draw a distinction-- uh -- it is not economic pressures which arethe -- the ultimate determinant in thesettlement of disputes between thegovernment and its employees. In the privatesector, this is true. The presence ofeconomic pressures operates as a restraint onthe part of management in the concessionswhich it gives to its employees lest it priceitself out of the market, and the economicpressures operate as a restraining force onthe union side, lest it, also, by the insistenceupon demands which would price theproduct out of the market or cause theemployer to move elsewhere, would causethem to lose jobs.

It is not economic pressure whichoperates in the public employ. It is political

6 © Board of Trustees of the eland Stanford Jr. University. 7

pressure. It is the political pressure, becausethere's a third party involved, an identifiablethird party, and these .. this is the membersof the general public. That's the third party.And the -. under our representative form ofgovernment, the ultimate decision actually ismade by elected officials who appropriate,whether it be the Town Council, the Boardof Estimate in New York, or the StateLegislature, or the Town Council, or theBoard of Education -. or, in the case of the-­of the, uh, school district, indeed the peoplethemselves who vote on budgets.

At the negotiation in privateemployment, a final decision can be made atthe bargaining table, because the employerhas -- can give full authority to hisrepresentatives, and the employee can dothat, too. In the public negotiation, this isnot so, because the -- there is no way inwhich the negotiator, on behalf of thegovernmental unit, can be vested with finaland binding authority; because final andbinding authority is held by theappropriating authority, whatever it may be.

MR. GOTBAUM: But it just -- it--

MR. WILSON: And these are fundamentaldifferences.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- it just has not existedthis way. It really has not. Ninety-nine pointnine percent of your decisions are made atthe collective bargaining table. And whatreally confounds me is your insistence thatthe --

MR. WILSON: Well, now·-

MR. GOTBAUM: Let -- let me, if I may --

MR. WILSON: Yes. All right, Vic.

MR. GOTBAUM: What really confounds meis your insistence that the budget is not aneconomic budget. I gotta be careful, becauseI've been restricted in this regard _. but thebudget is an economic budget. It's, in fact, aliving document. And, prior to collectivebargaining in the public sector, management-- the boss, the Mayor -- would make thedecision as to how much money would beallocated for wages or pensions and anythingelse. With the advent of unionism, our jobwasn't any different. Our job was of such anature where we now stated, in terms ofyour budgetary dollar, we were asking for acertain sum to be allocated. But what reallyconfounds me -- and now, let me throw the

ball to you on this, because I am disturbedby what I regard as management's ownsterility in this regard -- and that is simplythis:

I sit on one side of the bargaining tablealong with representatives of the variousgroups. On the other side of the bargainingtable is the Administration. In Sweden, theyhad the same problem. The legislative bodysaid, you know, my God, what happens isthey negotiate a contract and as same as inthe United States in 99.9 percent, all we dois rubber stamp it. This, by the way, was thecomplaint about the pension -- a justifiablecomplaint, if I may say so. So, in Sweden,they worked it out. They set up a salariescommission, from the Legislature, to sit onthe other side of the table, to bring it backto their legislative colleagues so they cou Idvote on it -. a very simple mechanism.

I told this to the City Council today inNew York, that you men ought to be sitting-- a group of your men ought to be sitting atthe bargaining table. You are the supremebody . .fu!!. when labor and management goesthrough the exhaustive process of collectivebargaining, and then you have it turned backwhen you believe it's been consummated;because the ru les have been changed inmidstream, as Senator John Markey pointedout. John Markey stated to me on thepension, "Vic, you're right. It shouldn't beex post facto; your pension ought to 'gothrough."

This was a statement the Senator made-- an honest, dedicated public servant -- hesaid, "You're caught in the squeeze, andthey're gonna kill you on it."

And, boy, they did! Except we -­except we killed back.

MR. WILSON: Uh, Victor, I think it mightbe interesting if we see -- I think it -- Let'stalk about the Taylor Law, which is the--

MR. GOTBAUM: Yeah.

MR. WILSON: -- governing statute in NewYork City. We have the Public EmployeesRelations Board, established under theTaylor Law, and there's a provision in thatlaw which allows local government'" units toset up its own bargaining mechanism, providedit is in substancial ..:ompliance with the Statelaw. In New York City, they do not use ourPublic Employees Relations Board; rather,the Office of Collective Bargaining.

Now, under our State law, if therepresentatives of the public employer andthe representatives of the public employee,

.1

I

I

after long negotiation, cannot reachagreement, an impasse obviously exists -- andthere is an impasse procedure. The impasseprocedure calls for the establishment of afact-finding board --

MR. GOTBAUM: Mm hmm.

MR. WILSON: _. a fact finding board withthe representative selected by the employerand another by the employee and a thirdnamed by .- I believe that's set up by thePublic Employees Relations Board. Thefact·finding board is just that. It explores allthe issues. listens to the parties and thenissues its report. Now, hopefully, the reportof the fact-finding board-in many instancesthis has provo" ~o be true -- has helped togenerate public opinion behind eitherposition, so that the differences arereconciled.

However, the basic purpose of thefact-finding report is that if it does notenable the parties to reach amicable solutionby airing the impartial recommendations,that report goes to the appropriating body.Now, for example, just recently, the statewas in negotiation with the State Police. Thenegotiations broke down, and fact-finderswere appointed. The fact-finders maderecommendations, in some of which theyagreed with the public employees, and insome of which they agreed with the publicemployer, and they made this report to theGovernor and the Legislature -- it wastransmitted to the fiscal committees of theLeg islatu re, -- and they have not yet actedupon that. But they are the representativesof the appropriating body.

Now, the simple fact is, of course, thatthe Legislature isn't going to be in sessionagain until next January, so that theLegislature, unless they're convened inspecial session, cannot act upon anyrecommendations made by its fiscalcommittees before next year, and then, ofcourse, they can be retroactive. But Imention that because you mentioned theSweden -- you know, Swedish pattern.

MR. WILSON: It would not -- it would betotally inappropriate in this country -- Idon't kolow how they elect folks over over inSweden -- but bear in mind, the members ofappropriating bodies, if they're in the state,run for office every two years, and in thecity they run for office every four years, andin other jurisdictions, they run every year,and negotiation is a long process going onover many months, and very often the

agreement is reached -- as your agreementwas reached, I might add -- in June or Julynf the year and in the middle of a bud~et

year, and it really has its impact in thefollowing budget year -- as your agreementdid, and as all of the agreements have, notalone in its pension aspect but in its otheraspects.

MR. BUCKLEY: Let me try, if I may,though, to -- to put a little focus on where itis that we're headed here.

MR. GOTBAUM: Yeah.

MR. BUCK LEY: All of us agree that thereare any number of devices which very often,by using them, it resu Its that a strike isaborted whether it's fact-findingcommissions or mediation, or, uhmmm,plebiscite or whatever -- but I mentioned asituation in which it doesn't stop the strike.

MR. GOTBAUM: Right.

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, the Taylor Law tellsyou what to do to try to stop a strike fromhappening --

MR. GOTBAUM: Yes.

MR. BUCKLEY: -- but it also tells you whatto do in case people persist in strikingagainst the law.

MR. WILSON: Uh, can I just tell you whatthe penalties are?

MR. BUCKLEY: Yeah.

MR. WI LSON: All right. The penalties, then,briefly, are these: The Public EmployeesRelations Board, if it determines that anyindividual striker -- or in New York City, theOCB -- any individual employee participatedin an illegal work stoppage --

MR. BUCKLEY: Mm hmm.

MR. WILSON: -- has the capacity to finethat employee two days' pay for each daymissed. He is on probation for a year, loseshis Civil Service tenure, and is an at-willemployee for a year. The PRB can deny theunion the check-off privilege --

MR. BUCKLEY: Mm hmm.

MR. WILSON: -- for a period of up toeighteen months, which is very important toan employee.

8 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 9

MR. BUCKLEY: Can or will?

MR. WILSON: Can. Can.

MR. BUCKLEY: And what decides whetherit will or won't?

MR. WILSON: What decides is the -- is thewill of the response of the employer inpursuing the remedies which are available forthe employer.

MR. BUCKLEY: Mm hmm.

MR. WILSON: Happily, uh, spurred on by awholesome provision in the law which saysthat if the taxpayer thinks that the publicofficial is not moving in a responsible way,to seek penalties against those who havegone on strike, a taxpayer may bring anaction to require the public employee toproceed.

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay. Now, the TaylorLaw -- we've had a lot of strikes in NewYork since the Taylor Law was written, orpassed. Can you describe the extent towhich -- well, let's take the teachers' strike,the great teachers' strike where the teachersof the City of New York went out forseveral months -- a semester or so. Now,what happened, let's say, to Mr. Shanker,who organized that strike?

MR. WI LSON: Well, for one thing, he wentto jail -- (some laughter and an indistinctexchange between Gotbaum and Buckley) -­and I read in a journal of public opinion ofrather wide circu lation the other day, a niceprofile of Victor Gotbaum, the opening'sentence of which was a direct quoteassigned to you, Victor, that if you don't goto jail, you haven't got the credentials. Thisseems to be, you know, the pattern. A unionleader who doesn't go to jail forcontempt ofcourt loses face. That seems to be --

MR. GOTBAUM: It's like, -- I -- they -- theycut the quote in half.

MR. WILSON: Well, I --

MR. GOTBAUM: I also said I needed therest and I wanted to catch up on my reading.(Laughter from audience)

MR. WILSON: Right. Yes. Well, at allevents, in the teachers' strike -- now, bear inmind, this -- this is all under the City; they'renot governed by the Taylor Law, as Ipointed out earlier. The Taylor Law provides

MR. GOTBAUM: Oh, the Board ofEducation is.

MR. WILSON: The Board of Education -­excuse me.

MR. GOTBAUM: Yes, they are under curb--

MR. WILSON: Right.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- and they are under--

MR. WILSON: Board of Education. Well, Ifrankly don't recall, but I believe theywithheld the check-off for a period of time.

MR. GOTBAUM: And they withheld thecheck-off for a year, but I .- I .-

MR. WILSON: And made a very substantial-- I neglected to say, that, uh, when the lawwas first written -- the Taylor Law -- in1967, there was a limitation on the finewhich could be imposed on the Union. Ibelieve the limitation was $10,000 a day.Then, there was a major strike in New York,a sanitation strike, and the TaylorCommittee made a recommendation forstrengthening that penalty; and there is nowno limit, so that the court may fix amonetary penalty without limit against aunion.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, was that done againstMr. Gotbaum's union?

MR. GOTBAUM: Well --

MR. WI LSON: No, that was done -- that wasbasically done, frankly, because arepresentative of the Teachers' Union,whether Mr. Shanker or someone else, hadsaid, "$10,000 doesn't mean anything to uswith our membership because we can buyimmunity for 25 cents per member perday."

MR. BUCKLEY: Mm hmm.

MR. GOTBAUM: Can I focus on this,because I think -- I think you're raisingexcellent points, but I don't think we'refocusing on why does the strike continuethen, if the law works so well. Malcolm, let'sput it on the table, because there'ssomething missing here. Mr. Buckley isn'tpresenting it as a philosophical debate. Hementions that strikes have continuedunabated and increased. You have increasedthe penalties to such an extent that George

(I

Taylor, by the way, disassociates himselffrom the Law. He was so upset with theamendments that he said, "They are not myamendments, and the Taylor Act no 'Iongerhas George Taylor's -- "

MR. WILSON: You're talking about .­excuse me, just make clear -- you're talkingabout the amendments that were enacted --

MR. GOTBAUM: That -- the··

MR. WILSON: -- at the 1971 session of theLegislature.

MR. GOTBAUM: Un, no, the last-· the 19-­this is the 1971 session.

MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.

MR. GOTBAUM: It was the 1969 sessionwhere the amendments that curbed -- thatGeorge Taylor -- disassociated himself fromthe Law, and you know, I think we have totalk to this. For example, when ProfessorDunlop. and Nelson Rockefeller presented tomyself and a few others the supremacy ofthe Legislature _. in other words, theLegislature has to okay the final decision ifthere is an impasse. Governor Wilson'sdefinition is quite correct, except the way itworks is the workers lose faith; therefore,the strike. Why? The question I threw atJohn Dunlop and at Nelson Rockefeller wasa very simple one: Did they know, out of allthe thousands of legislative bodies, sixlegislative bodies -- six out of all thethousands -- where the legislative body wasfree from domination by the boss.

MR. WILSON: Oh, come on.

MR. GOTBAUM: Wait! Name six -- asidefrom Lindsay. (Light laughter fromaudience)

MR. BUCKLEY: No, that--

MR. GOTBAUM: Come on. You say, "Oh,come on." Name six, because here's what ha

MR. BUCKLEY: That's like saying nametwo courts that are free from the influenceof human beings.

MR. GOTBAUM: No. No, sir, because we'retalking now _. we're talking now of laborrelations, and here is what we're talkingabout. If the school superintendent at

Huntington -- an absolute case -- the schoolsuperintendent in Huntington disagrees withthe teachers' union in Huntington; theydisagreed, right? They had a fact-findingcommission in that agreed with the teachers'union. Now, they presented it to the schoolboard that hires the school superintendent.To nobody's mysticism or surprise, whatoccurred then was that the school board

. turned down the fact-finder, because they'rethe legislative body. The point I'm making is

MR. WILSON: Yeah, but let me -- let mehasten to add that. u h --MR. GOTBAUM: _. that the -- the -- theworkers have no faith in this -- and this is the-- the point--

·MR. WI LSON: -. that what Vic has pointedout is limited to the school board situationwhich I mentioned earlier. This is a very realproblem, because of the manner in whichschool budgets -- I mentioned earlier in thisprogram --

MR. GOTBAUM: Also legislative budgets.

MR. WI LSON: -- that school budgets--

MR. GOTBAUM: Yeah.

MR. WI LSON: -- are -- are really fixed by thepeople, because, except in the large cities _.the voters vote on the budget -- and I agreewith Vic, it is a very bad situation in theschool districts, which are fiscallyindependent, where the voters vote on thebudget. There is a bad situation there whichwe're trying to solve and haven't found asolution; because, as Vic points out, thesuperintendent or h is representativesnegotiate on behalf of the employer withrepresentatives of the employees --

MR. BUCKLEY: Then they get knockeddown by the voters.

MR. WILSON: No, no, uh -- well, no; theyget back -- the -- the report comes back tothe school superintendent who's chargedwith making up the budget, and he canreject the recommendations, and the onlyway the people can participate is by turningdown his budget and demanding that heincrease it to meet the demands -- and that I,concedely, is -- is a situation which isindigenous in this whole field to the fiscallyindependent school districts in New Yorkwhere the voters vote on the budget. But

10 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 11

with respect to all other -- with respect to -­to 2500 or 3000 public employers in thestate.

MR. GOTBAUM: Malcolm -- Malcolm, this iswhere we disagree. This is really where wedisagree, because the -- the state legis --

MR. WILSON: Well, tell me -- tell me aparallel situation.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- because the statelegislative body, if it's dominated by theRepublicans for example, when Council 82had a disagreement with Abe Levine, whowa. an appointee of the Governor, there wasa disagreement. The fact-finder made arecommendation in our favor. This came tothe State Legislature. Lo and behold, acurious thing happened. A committee wassent up and a recommendation was made tothe State Legislature. All the Republicansvoted one way, and all the Democrats votedthe other way. (Laughing)Now,howcanwe--

MR. WILSON: The problem really is if theDemocrats were in the majority, theDemocrats would have voted the one wayand the Republicans the other.

MR. GOTBAUM: (Laughing) Absolutelyright! Malcolm, you're absolutely right. Butthey were politicalizing, though. You see,what we're doing is we're politicalizing --

MR. WI LSON: Yeah, but you see, you -­you're missing the funda- -- No, no, excuseme, this is not partisan in that sense.

MR. GOTBAUM: It is. Of course it is. It hasto be. How can they vote against somethingthat -- that -- that Nelson Rockefeller wants?

MR. WILSON: Well, why don't you take alook at the, uh, at the wreckage --

MR. GOTBAUM: (Laughs)

MR. WILSON: -- of the, uh -- of Rockefellerproposals which are strewn allover thelandscape in Albany, Victor? This year --

MR. GOTBAUM: Not against -- not againstthe union, though.

PANEL PARTICIPATION:

MR. BUCKLEY: Mr. Lowell.

MR. LOWELL: My question is for Mr.

Gotbaum. You referred at the beginning ofthe program to a just principle which youhave been fighting for. But I don'tunderstand what this just principle is,because you surely must be aware that anycontract must be ratified by the partieswhom it affects. Your union has a right, forexample, to ratify a contract which affectsit. In this case, it seems that the StateLegislature, which represents the people ofthe City and State of New York, had refusedto ratify you r contract.

MR. GOTBAUM: That was -- uh, I'm sorry--

MR. LOWELl: The point is -- the point is, Idon't understand, is that if there is nocontract, then why are you striking?

MR. GOTBAUM: Well, this _. this is--

MR. LOWELL: There's -- there's not abreach -- there's not a breach of contractissue here.

MR. GOTBAUM: The law -- the law, interms of pensions -- the law states, the StateLegislature must consider the pension. It's inthe law, by the way. I stated to MalcolmWilson when we met, "Let it go for a vote; ifit's voted down, I'll abide by it," because thelaw stated consideration.

Both Nelson Rockefeller and MalcolmWilson stated to me, "It will be voteddown."

I said, "Give it that vote."On three different occasions, I made

the statement, if the sovereign -- therepresentatives of the sovereign people votedit down there would be no strike. And thisis the heart of the issue -- and th is is theprinciple on why we struck.

MR. LOWELl: In other words, you're angrybecause they haven't voted it down or -- or -­or approved it right now.

MR. GOTBAUM: I am angry because thedemocratic process was denied, and that'swhat's so disturbing to me. There is a statelegislative body; they were never given theability to vote on it. This is what I begged ofthe Governor; this is what I begged of theLieutenant Governor. If they voted it down,I would not have struck. Put it up. AndNelson Rockefeller stated it would havebeen voted down. I said fine, then we wouldnot strike.

MR. LOWELL: Isn't it on the agenda for

"

next year?

MR. BUCKLEY: Don't you deny thedemocratic process when you strikeillegally?

MR. GOTBAUM: Do I deny the democraticprocess?

MR. BUCKLEY: The law was passed by thedemocratic process. It wasn't passed byRockefeller or Governor Wilson; it waspassed by the majority of the legislators.You defied that law, so what happens toyou r respect for the democratic process?

MR. GOTBAUM: You mean in terms ofdefying the law?

MR. BUCKLEY: Yeah. Precisely.

MR. GOTBAUM: I stated as far as I wasconcerned -- I mentioned it time and again -­that the person who broke the law wasNelson Rockefeller. And we reacted in kind,no question about it.

MR. BUCKLEY: You began the program anhour ago by saying that you admitted thatyou had. broken the law.

MR. GOTBAUM: Yes, I said--

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, all of a sudden,you're talking about the sanctity of thedemocratic process to poor Mr. Lowell here.

MR. GOTBAUM: Poor Mr. Lowell? Just aminute --

MR. LOWELL: I -- I -- now, you said it was-- you admitted, by the way, that it was onthe agenda for next year, didn't you?

MR. GOTBAUM: Poor Mr. Lowell looks likehe could take you and me on together.(Laughter from audience)

MR. LOWELL: It is on the agenda for nextyear, isn't it?

MR. GOTBAUM: Yeah.

MR. LOWELL: Well then, I don't -- and youhave a pension plan right now thatgau rantees half-pension after 20 years.

MR. GOTBAUM: Where -- where do we havethat?

MR. LOWELL: Isn't that right?

MR. GOTBAUM: No, it isn't right.

MR. BUCKLEY: No, that's merelyproposed.

MR. LOWELl: Oh.

MR. BUCKLEY: Miss Kramer -- can we turnMiss Kramer on?

MISS KRAMER: Yes. Uh, in view of thelimitations of the Taylor Law, I'd like toknow what defense do the people of NewYork State have against the plagues you'veunleashed upon us? It seems to me that youractions don't particularly comply with thecollective bargaining system from which youreap many benefits as well as, hopefully,some obligations.

MR. GOTBAUM: There is no collectivebargaining system.

MISS KRAMER: Well, shall we call itnegotiating?

MR. GOTBAUM: In terms -- in terms of, letme state this to you, in terms of the police,fire, sanitation -- all of these men, by theway, agreed with me that now the collectivebargaining system is in complete jeopardy;because if we can bring something to Albanyand it doesn't even come up forconsideration, how can we bargain under thecollective bargaining system? So one of thefights we are making, therefore, is for acollective bargaining system; because rightnow -- right now John DeLury stated this tome -- Eddie Kiernan stated it to me -­(several words garbled) -- that, "Vic, wedon't know where to go." What they'redoing is destroying the collective bargainingsystem -- or if Malc'olm Wilson wants to callit collective negotiations, fine. But th is is theheart of it.

You see, seven pensions prior to ourscame into Albany -- seven pensions -- majorpensions in New York City -- one, includingour own before we opposed Rockefeller inthe Goldberg election, was accepted -- nevereven touched. This pension comes after thisunion fought Rockefeller bitterly,' andsuddenly it can't come up for a vote. So, thewhole collective bargaining process becomespoliticalized. That's it. And we responded.

MISS KRAMER: And the alternative is?

MR. GOTBAUM: Is that -- well, you know

12 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 13

what the alternative was --

MISS KRAMER: What--

MR. GOTBAUM: Do you want me to tellyou the details, or -- or --

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, no -- no.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- or don't you read theNew York Times? (Laughter from audience)

MISS KRAMER: I -- I'd like to hear whatthey are for the soci- -- for New York society .

MR. WILSON: Well, Mr. Gotbaum'scomment is -- is still, uh, resounding andreverberating --

MISS KRAMER: -- aside from unionworkers.

MR. BUCKLEY: Let's let Governor Wilsoncomment on this.

MR. WILSON: I'm sorry that you choose topersonalize this as far as GovernorRockefeller is concerned; because; Vic, youknow -- you were present at meetings atwhich I was present -- when GovernorRockefeller and John Markey, of whom youspoke, were trying to see whether there weresome amendments that could be agreedupon, and I was one who opposed totally,any amendments, because it would havebeen an -, a renegotiation of a contractwithout the other party present -- namely,the people in the union.

MR. GOTBAUM: Well, but you're thenumber two man. I'm not negotiating withyou.

MR. WILSON: NO.1 understand that.

MR. GOTBAUM: The final decision -­mean, you're a nice man and I like you --

MR. WILSON: Yes. Right. Yes.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- but the final decisionwas the Governor's. And if you recall --

MR. WILSON: No, excuse me -- but we havea separation of powers. We have a legislativebranch of government, and Senator Markeywas the Chairman of the committee towhich your bill was referred --

MR. GOTBAUM: (Who has been laughingand trying to interrupt) Uh, let me -- just letme -- uh--

MR. WILSON: -- and if Senator Markeywanted to cause the bill to be reported, hecould have done it.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- uh, Malcolm, let me tellthe -- exactly what happened there that --

MR. WILSON: Sure.

MR. GOTBAUM: I met with John Markeyand he said, "Vic, I'd report it out, except"-- and this is not personalizing; this is anactual fact -- "except that Earl Brydgeswould stall it at the request of the Governor.You'll have to see Brydges."

We went to see Brydges. We went tosee Brydges, and Brydges stated, "There'sonly one man who can put it out for you,Vic, and that's the Governor, and you haveto meet with him."

We did meet.My final statement at the second

meeting with Nelson Rockefeller -- now,correct me if I'm wrong -- my finalstatement to him was that we had alreadygiven up the overtime, if you recall -- we'veno argument there. My second statement tohim was that since he was worried aboutescalation, we would pull the fraction downto 2.5. If police and fire did as well orbetter, we would push it back up in the nextsession.

The Governor came over to me. Heput his hand on my shoulder and he says,"Vic, you've been very responsible; we'll getback to you in the morning."

Like the big bird, I still haven't seenhim since.

MR. WILSON: Well now, Bill, I -- I didn'tthink we were gonna talk about the precis ofthe -- of the so-called Gotbaum Pension Plan-- uh -- but if you, uh --

MR. BUCKLEY: No. I didn't think soeither.

MR. WILSON: -- well, -- and, therefore,don't want to -- I don't want to --

MR. GOTBAUM: No, I just -- I thought -­these are just in terms of the process --

MR. WILSON: -- because this -- the -- I amunhappy, however, about the fact that someof the things that Victor just said will be,

apparently, uh, undisputed unless I do makean observation about the Gotbaum Plan -­so-called Gotbaum Plan -- known popularly

MR. GOTBAUM: The District Council 37.I'm -- I'm not retiring under it, as you know.

MR. WILSON: Good. The plain simple factis -- and I think, uh, Mr. Lowell made thepoint earlier -- that the negotiation, thecontract which Mr. Gotbaum negotiatedwith the City on behalf of his Unionmembers, dealt with many things: workingconditions, salaries, and pensions. And, as hepo inted out, the Leg islatu re reserves theright to act on all pensions, because pensionsare a matter of statewide concern; it is notwithin the province of the local governmentto act upon them.

Now: the agreement provided -- it wasexecuted in July or August of 1970, andprovided that its benefits would beretroactive to August 1, 1970, even thoughthe Legislature couldn't act on it till 1971.And it is a two-year or two-and-a-half-yearcontract; it expires, by its terms, sometimein 1972 -- in late 1972 --

MR. GOTBAUM: Right in the middle.

MR. WILSON: -- in the middle of '72. TheLegislature meets again in regular session inJanuary of 1972, and I said to Victor in thecourse of this discussion, "Victor, so whatcan I -- what can I do?"

I said, "It's very simple. Your contractsays it's retroactive; therefore, since we wantto look at the whole matter of pensions, andwe're not going to pass any pension bills thisyear, except extensions of temporaryprovisions, and we're gonna establish- apension committee to review the wholematter of public retirement, you can tellyour members you'll be back with the samebill next year for the consideration." But --

MR. GOTBAUM: What did I respond to youthen, Governor?

MR. WI LSON: You said, "Well, that's, uh,gonna be hard for them to swallow."

MR. GOTBAUM: No. What was the exactthing I said to you, Governor?

MR. WILSON: Well, uh, we're -- we go intomany homes, Victor -- (Laughter from'audience)

MR. GOTBAUM: -- The exact -- the exactthing -- the exact thing I said to you,Governor, if you recall -- the exact thing Isaid to you was that you are punishing apension that covers lower economic workers,you're passing an ex post facto commission.I happened to agree with the setting up ofthe commission, if you recall, because Ithink there has to be some standardization -­but the question I raise with you is, why areyou malQng it ex post facto? John Markeystated that, "Victor" -- and I am repeating it-- "you did negotiate the contract; youought not to be caught into it."

MR. BUCKLEY: Let's -- let's, uh--

MR. WI LSON: Yeah --

MR. BUCKLEY: -- let Mr. Watt ask aquestion here. Mr. Watt?

MR. WATT: Well, I think Mr. Gotbaum hasdone fairly well. Uh, because, uh, for onething, this -- those particular negotiationstook a Iittle over a year, as I recall, and thatbill was (sic) been sitting up there forsomething over a year -- correct me if I'mwrong. Uh, and I just don't see how you cansit there and talk about collectivenegotiations -- I'll use your term -- and asthough it works -- and it has -- it has not -- ithas worked very badly, but it has only reallybroken down when it got to a union whosemajor portion -- and this is the way it's beinginterpreted in many black communities -­whose major members are black and PuertoRican, the ma- majority of themembership -- and what -- what--

MR. BUCKLEY: How do you answer that,Governor?

MR. WILSON: Well, I answer it very simplyby observing that Mr. Watt cannot beserious, nor Mr. Gotbaum, in the referenceto the fact that this pension was rejectedbecause, uh, it affected many, non-whitefellow citizens of ours. That is a very cruelstatement to make--

MR. WATT: I didn't say--

MR. WI LSON: -- in the face of the record ofboth parties in the Legislature--

MR. WATT: Governor Wilson--

MR. WI LSON: -- and our Governor, withrespect to the equal opportunity for all, and

14 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 15

I don't have to defend it, because it's writtenin the record. The reason, Mr. Watt, so thatyou'll understand --

MR. BUCKLEY: Let him finish, Mr. Watt,and we'll be right back with you, Mr. Watt.Just let the Governor fin ish.

MR. WILSON: The reason, so that you willunderstand -- and I think that since therewill be people. looking at this program,hopefully, outside the State of New York -­that the basic problem in the field ofretirement is the fact that in theConstitution -- written in the Constitution of1938 -. is a provision which says amembership in a pension system -- publicpension system -- shall be deemed acontractual right, the benefits of which shallnot be diminished or impaired. Therefore,anything which is done in the pension fieldis something that is irreversible. It is in thepension area that most of the publicemployers have given, in the long run, in anegotiation, for a practical political reason inthat the cost does not show up until 15months or 18 months later when they arebilled by the retirement system, and it thencomes in as a so-called fixed item in thebudget, non-discretionary.

One of the basic problems in NewYork City today, as Mr. Gotbaum knows, isthat in the budget which the Mayor is nowsubmitting to the Common Council -- thereis about $700,000,000 in mandatedcontributions to the pension systems -­various pension systems which is$90,000,000 more than last year, and nextyear it will increase under existing contracts

MR. BUCKLEY: What's this got to do withblacks and Puerto Ricans?

MR. WI LSON: Nothing whatsoever. Thejudgment was made by the Legislature, butMr. Watt raised the question.

MR. BUCKLEY: But Mr. Watt .. Mr. Wattsays that you've okayed pensions for otherunions.

MR. WILSON: Well, we have -- there weresome 600 pension bills which wereintroduced in the last session. Excuse me -­(There is a great deal of overlapping dialoguehere and Wilson is trying to hold the·floor) -­these judgments are not made --

MR. GOTBAUM: The point that Mr. Watt

makes --

MR. WILSON: Yes.

MR. GOTBAUM: -- is a interesting one--

MR. WI LSON: Yeah.

MR. GOTBAUM: --and I think we have torespond to it. I never complained about acommission. I think that a commissionshould be set up. Our pension came in priorto the setting up of the commission.

MR. BUCKLEY: Now wait a minute. We'regetting much too specific .. see, you're goingto lose your audience.

MR. GOTBAUM: Well, what I'm gonna sayis -- what I'm saying --

MR. BUCKLEY: So tell me, what -- howdoes this black-Puerto Rican thing figure inthis argument?

MR. GOTBAUM: Yes. What·· what happensin this case, Mr. Buckley, that the first majorpension that is turned down is a pension thathas the largest number of blacks and PuertoRicans in it. Now --

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, could that be a point.. ?

MR. WI LSON: Well, uh, the other side ofthat is that Mr. Gotbaum is saying --

MR. GOTBAUM: .. it could be a merecoincidence -- I'm saying it could be acoincidence, but --

MR. WI LSON: -- that the Legislature shouldadopt an improvident plan, because --

MR. GOTBAUM: Oh, no. No, I didn't saythat -- no--

MR. WI LSON: Well, then, don't say it!

MR. GOTBAUM: -- Malcolm -- Malcolm,didn't say that -- I think that--

MR. WI LSON: Victor, I think you're beingobviously unfair.

MR. GOTBAUM: I did not say that! I didnot say that -- and let's be fair about it. I didnot say you should adopt an improvidentplan. What I am stating is that you changedhorses in midstream, that you set up a

..

comm ission and made it ex post facto, andnot the one I'm really stating to you -- and Ididn't state that. What I am stating to you isthat if you wanted to start standardizing,why did you hit a pension where the percapita cost has been less than police, fire,sanitation, etcetera?

MR. WILSON: You say that. You say it ..

MR. GOTBAUM: We -- we have -- well wehave the actuarial figures, because we _: wehave a fifty-five-year-old· age limit and theydon't.

MR. BUCKLEY: (Several words indistinctevoking laughter) ,

MR. WILSON: There were about .. therewere about 600 pension betterment bills, sixor seven hundred introduced in theLegislature this year, of which I would say,approximately, 25 passed both houses; and,therefore, the judgments were made, as Isaid earlier, on the basis of whether wewould just extend existing temporaryprovisions, and study the whole matter.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, does that remove -­does that remove the suspicion, Mr. Watt,that you, uh --

MR. WATT: I never stated it as a suspicion.

MR. BUCKLEY: No, I don't mean of yourown. You said that a lot -- a lot --

MR. WATT: No. No way in the world thathe, Governor 'Rockefeller or Jesus Christcou Id sit there -- (Laughter from aud iencel ..and say that and remove the suspicions fromthe minds of the blacks and Puerto Ricans ofthis society.

MR. BUCKLEY: In which case, what shouldbe done to remove it?

MR. WATT: That's their problem. Ours is totry to see that we get what we need. Thiswas not what I was trying to get at; and, asMr. Gotbaum pointed out, he was notresponsive to my question. But he did get torespond to, uh, Mr. Gotbaum. Uh, I thinkwe're suppo- we were supposedlydiscussing the Taylor Law, and the TaylorLaw with all its revisions has never workedbecause it has been enforced selectively, andit's really a political-economic issue. Excuseme for using your, uh .. the borrowed item.And any time you try to discuss it on anyother level, to me. it's largely a waste of time.

MR. WILSON: Well, could I just say thatsince the Taylor Law was enacted, I daresaythat there have been successfu lIy negotiatedfrom 7500 to 10,000 agreements betweenunits of government and their employees.There have been very few strikes --~ few.The strikes get the news. When there's nostrike, there's no news.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Governor.

MR. WI LSON: And the fact of the matter isit is pusillanimous administration which i~more responsive.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Governor.Thank you. Please tune in next week forCongressman Ronald Dellums and adiscussion of the Black Caucus. Thank you.

MR. WILSON: Thank you.

16 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 17